Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for Combined Licenses 

(COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant 

Units 1 and 2 

Draft Report for Comment 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of New Reactors 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Army Engineer District, 

Jacksonville 

Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019 

NUREG-1941, Vol. 1
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS 

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC=s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few, 

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and 

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal 

memoranda; bulletins and information notices; 

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event 

reports; and Commission papers and their 

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of 

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents 

 U.S. Government Printing Office 

 Mail Stop SSOP 

 Washington, DC 20402B0001 

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov 

 Telephone: 202-512-1800 

 Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

 Springfield, VA 22161B0002 

 www.ntis.gov 

 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows: 

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Administration 

 Mail, Distribution and Messenger Team 

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301B415B2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC=s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found 

on a Web site bear the date the material was 

accessed, the material available on the date cited may 

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as 

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal 

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and 

congressional reports. Such documents as theses, 

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and 

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased 

from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained atC

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852B2738 

These standards are available in the library for 

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are 

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the 

originating organization or, if they are American 

National Standards, fromC

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 42nd Street 

New York, NY 10036B8002 

www.ansi.org 

212B642B4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not 

necessarily those of the NRC. 

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors 

(NUREG/CRBXXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences 

(NUREG/CPBXXXX), (3) reports resulting from 

international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) 

brochures (NUREG/BRBXXXX), and (5) compilations 

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors=

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC=s regulations 

(NUREGB0750).
Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for Combined Licenses 

(COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant 

Units 1 and 2

Draft Report for Comment 

Manuscript Completed: August 2010 

Date Published: August 2010 

Division of Site and Environmental Review 

Office of New Reactors 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Regulatory Branch 

Jacksonville District 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019 

NUREG-1941, Vol. 1 
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT 

Any party interested may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff. 

Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please 

specify the report number draft NUREG-1941 in your comments and send them by the end of the 

75-day comment period specified in the Federal Register notice announcing availability of this 

draft. 

To submit comments: 

Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch 

Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Fax: (301) 492-3446 

Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by email at Levy.COLEIS@nrc.gov. 

For any additional information or copies of this draft, contact: 

Mr. Douglas Bruner 

Mail Stop T7-E18 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Phone: (301) 415-2730 

Email: Douglas.Bruner@nrc.gov 

or 

Mr. Gordon A. Hambrick, III 

Senior Project Manager 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Jacksonville District 

1002 West 23rd Street, Suite 350 

Panama City, Florida 32401 

Phone: (850) 763-0717, ext. 25 

Email: Gordon.A.Hambrick@usace.army.mil
August 2010 iii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Abstract 

2 This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application 

3 submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

4 (PEF) for combined construction permits and operating licenses (combined licenses or COLs). 

5 The proposed actions related to the PEF application are (1) NRC issuance of COLs for two new 

6 power reactor units at the Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) site in Levy County, Florida, and (2) U.S. 

7 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issuance of a permit to perform certain construction 

8 activities on the site. The USACE is participating in preparing this EIS as a cooperating agency 

9 and participates collaboratively on the review team (which comprises NRC staff, contractor staff, 

10 and USACE staff). 

11 This EIS includes the review team’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 

12 impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear units at the LNP site and at alternative 

13 sites, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. 

14 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) requires that the USACE apply the 

15 criteria set forth in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines in evaluating projects that propose to discharge 

16 dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The USACE must also determine 

17 through its Public Interest Review (PIR) whether the proposed project is contrary to the public 

18 interest. The USACE permit decision, including its evaluation under the 404 Guidelines and the 

19 PIR, will be documented in the USACE Record of Decision, which will be issued following the 

20 issuance of the Final EIS. After considering the environmental aspects of the proposed action, 

21 the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission is that the COLs be issued as 

22 proposed. This recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the Environmental 

23 Report (ER), submitted by PEF; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; 

24 (3) the review team’s independent review; (4) the consideration of public scoping comments; 

25 and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation measures 

26 identified in the ER and this EIS. 

August 2010 v Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Contents 

2 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii 

3 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. xxxi 

4 Abbreviations/Acronyms .......................................................................................................... xxxv 

5 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 

6 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1-2 

7 1.1.1 Application and Review ................................................................................ 1-2 

8 1.1.1.1 NRC COL Application Review ....................................................... 1-2 

9 1.1.1.2 USACE Permit Application Review ................................................ 1-4 

10 1.1.2 Preconstruction Activities ............................................................................. 1-5 

11 1.1.3 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................................. 1-5 

12 1.1.4 Concurrent NRC Reviews ............................................................................ 1-6 

13 1.2 The Proposed Federal Actions ................................................................................. 1-7 

14 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions ........................................................... 1-7 

15 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Actions ....................................................................... 1-8 

16 1.5 Compliance and Consultations ................................................................................. 1-9 

17 1.6 References ............................................................................................................... 1-9 

18 2.0 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 2-1 

19 2.1 Site Location ............................................................................................................. 2-1 

20 2.2 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 2-1 

21 2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity ..................................................................................... 2-5 

22 2.2.2 Transmission-Line Corridors ........................................................................ 2-8 

23 2.2.3 The Region ................................................................................................. 2-10 

24 2.3 Water ...................................................................................................................... 2-14 

25 2.3.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................... 2-16 

26 2.3.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology ............................................................ 2-16 

27 2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology ............................................................... 2-24 

28 2.3.2 Water Use ................................................................................................... 2-29 

29 2.3.2.1 Surface-Water Use ...................................................................... 2-29 

30 2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use ......................................................................... 2-30 

31 2.3.3 Water Quality .............................................................................................. 2-30 

32 2.3.3.1 Surface-Water Quality ................................................................. 2-32 

33 2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality .................................................................... 2-37 
Draft NUREG-1941 vi August 2010 

1 2.3.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 2-38 

2 2.3.4.1 Surface-Water Monitoring ............................................................ 2-38 

3 2.3.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring .............................................................. 2-40 

4 2.4 Ecology ................................................................................................................... 2-40 

5 2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology ................................................................ 2-40 

6 2.4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 2-41 

7 2.4.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Associated Offsite Facilities ................... 2-51 

8 2.4.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats – Site and Vicinity .... 2-59 

9 2.4.1.4 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats – Associated Offsite 

10 Facilities ....................................................................................... 2-82 

11 2.4.1.5 Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................... 2-86 

12 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology .......................................................................................... 2-87 

13 2.4.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity ......................................... 2-88 

14 2.4.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines .................................. 2-102 

15 2.4.2.3 Aquatic Species and Habitats .................................................... 2-103 

16 2.4.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring ..................................................................... 2-120 

17 2.5 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................... 2-122 

18 2.5.1 Demographics .......................................................................................... 2-125 

19 2.5.1.1 Resident Population ................................................................... 2-125 

20 2.5.1.2 Transient Population .................................................................. 2-129 

21 2.5.1.3 Migrant Labor ............................................................................. 2-129 

22 2.5.2 Community Characteristics ....................................................................... 2-130 

23 2.5.2.1 Economy .................................................................................... 2-131 

24 2.5.2.2 Taxes ......................................................................................... 2-132 

25 2.5.2.3 Transportation ............................................................................ 2-135 

26 2.5.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation ......................................................... 2-137 

27 2.5.2.5 Housing ...................................................................................... 2-142 

28 2.5.2.6 Public Services .......................................................................... 2-143 

29 2.5.2.7 Education ................................................................................... 2-153 

30 2.6 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................... 2-154 

31 2.6.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 2-155 

32 2.6.2 Analysis .................................................................................................... 2-156 

33 2.6.2.1 Location of Minority and Low-income Populations..................2-156 

34 2.6.2.2 Minoriy Population..........................................................2-157 

35 2.6.2.3 Low-income Populations..................................................2-158 

36 2.6.2.4 Communities with Unique Characteristics............................2-163 

37 2.6.3 Scoping and Outreach .............................................................................. 2-164 

38 2.6.4 Migrant Populations .................................................................................. 2-164 
August 2010 vii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary .............................................................. 2-165 

2 2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 2-165 

3 2.7.1 Cultural Background ................................................................................. 2-166 

4 2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Site and Offsite Areas ................. 2-168 

5 2.7.2.1 Archaeological Resources ......................................................... 2-169 

6 2.7.2.2 Above-Ground Resources ......................................................... 2-170 

7 2.7.2.3 Traditional Cultural Properties ................................................... 2-170 

8 2.7.2.4 Transmission Lines .................................................................... 2-171 

9 2.7.3 Consultation .............................................................................................. 2-171 

10 2.8 Geology ................................................................................................................ 2-172 

11 2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality ................................................................................. 2-175 

12 2.9.1 Climate ..................................................................................................... 2-175 

13 2.9.1.1 Wind ........................................................................................... 2-176 

14 2.9.1.2 Atmospheric Stability ................................................................. 2-177 

15 2.9.1.3 Temperature .............................................................................. 2-177 

16 2.9.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture ................................................................ 2-177 

17 2.9.1.5 Severe Weather ......................................................................... 2-178 

18 2.9.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 2-178 

19 2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion ............................................................................ 2-179 

20 2.9.3.1 Short-Term Dispersion Estimates .............................................. 2-179 

21 2.9.3.2 Long-Term Diffusion Estimates.................................................. 2-180 

22 2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring ........................................................................ 2-180 

23 2.10 Nonradiological Environment ............................................................................... 2-181 

24 2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health ............................................................... 2-181 

25 2.10.1.1 Air Quality .................................................................................. 2-182 

26 2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries ................................................................. 2-182 

27 2.10.1.3 Etiological Agents ...................................................................... 2-183 

28 2.10.2 Noise ........................................................................................................ 2-185 

29 2.10.3 Transportation .......................................................................................... 2-187 

30 2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields ............................................................................. 2-187 

31 2.11 Radiological Environment ..................................................................................... 2-188 

32 2.12 Related Federal Projects and Consultation .......................................................... 2-189 

33 2.13 References ........................................................................................................... 2-189 

34 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description .................................................................................... 3-1 

35 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout .................................................................... 3-1 

36 3.2 Proposed Plant Structures, Systems, and Components .......................................... 3-3 
Draft NUREG-1941 viii August 2010 

1 3.2.1 Reactor Power Conversion Systems ............................................................ 3-3 

2 3.2.2 Structures, Systems, and Components with a Major Environmental 

3 Interface ........................................................................................................ 3-6 

4 3.2.2.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage ........................................... 3-6 

5 3.2.2.2 Cooling System .............................................................................. 3-6 

6 3.2.2.3 Other Permanent Structures, Systems, or Components with an 

7 Environmental Interface ............................................................... 3-12 

8 3.2.2.4 Other Temporary Plant-Environment Interfacing Structures ........ 3-14 

9 3.2.3 Structures with a Minor Environmental Interface ........................................ 3-15 

10 3.2.3.1 Nuclear Island, Turbine Building, and Annex Building ................. 3-15 

11 3.2.3.2 Pipelines ...................................................................................... 3-15 

12 3.2.3.3 Miscellaneous Buildings .............................................................. 3-15 

13 3.2.3.4 Parking ......................................................................................... 3-15 

14 3.2.3.5 Laydown Areas ............................................................................ 3-16 

15 3.2.3.6 Switchyard ................................................................................... 3-16 

16 3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities ........................................................... 3-16 

17 3.3.1 Major Activity Areas .................................................................................... 3-18 

18 3.3.1.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage ......................................... 3-18 

19 3.3.1.2 Circulating-Water Intake Structure....................................... 3-19 

20 3.3.1.3 Circulating-Water Discharge Structure ........................................ 3-19 

21 3.3.1.4 Diesel Generators ........................................................................ 3-19 

22 3.3.1.5 Roads .......................................................................................... 3-19 

23 3.3.1.6 Grouting and Dewatering ............................................................. 3-19 

24 3.3.1.7 Water-Supply Wells ..................................................................... 3-20 

25 3.3.1.8 Barge Facility ............................................................................... 3-20 

26 3.3.1.9 Sanitary Waste-Treatment Plant .................................................. 3-20 

27 3.3.1.10 Power Transmission System ....................................................... 3-20 

28 3.3.1.11 Cranes and Crane Footings ......................................................... 3-21 

29 3.3.1.12 Concrete Batch Plant ................................................................... 3-21 

30 3.3.1.13 Powerblock and Cooling Towers ................................................. 3-21 

31 3.3.1.14 Pipelines ...................................................................................... 3-22 

32 3.3.1.15 Miscellaneous Buildings .............................................................. 3-22 

33 3.3.1.16 Parking ......................................................................................... 3-22 

34 3.3.1.17 Laydown Areas ............................................................................ 3-22 

35 3.3.1.18 Switchyard ................................................................................... 3-22 

36 3.3.2 Summary of Resource Commitments Due to Building Activities ................ 3-23 

37 3.4 Operational Activities .............................................................................................. 3-24 

38 3.4.1 Description of Operational Modes .............................................................. 3-24 

39 3.4.2 Plant-Environment Interfaces During Operation ......................................... 3-24 
August 2010 ix Draft NUREG-1941 

1 3.4.2.1 Circulating-Water System – Intakes, Discharges, and Cooling 

2 Towers ......................................................................................... 3-24 

3 3.4.2.2 Service-Water System ................................................................. 3-27 

4 3.4.2.3 Water-Treatment Systems ........................................................... 3-28 

5 3.4.2.4 Landscape and Drainage ............................................................. 3-29 

6 3.4.2.5 Water-Supply Wells ..................................................................... 3-29 

7 3.4.2.6 Diesel Generators ........................................................................ 3-29 

8 3.4.2.7 Transmission-Line Maintenance .................................................. 3-30 

9 3.4.3 Radioactive Waste-Management Systems ................................................. 3-31 

10 3.4.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management ...................................... 3-31 

11 3.4.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management ................................. 3-32 

12 3.4.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste-Management ........................................ 3-33 

13 3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste-Management Systems ........................................... 3-33 

14 3.4.4.1 Solid-Waste Management............................................................ 3-33 

15 3.4.4.2 Liquid-Waste Management .......................................................... 3-34 

16 3.4.4.3 Gaseous-Waste Management ..................................................... 3-37 

17 3.4.4.4 Hazardous- and Mixed-Waste Management ............................... 3-37 

18 3.4.5 Summary of Resource Commitments During Operation ............................ 3-38 

19 3.5 References ............................................................................................................. 3-39 

20 4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site ...................................................................... 4-1 

21 4.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 4-3 

22 4.1.1 The Site, Vicinity, Region, and Offsite Areas ................................................ 4-4 

23 4.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors ...................................................................... 4-11 

24 4.1.3 Summary of Land-Use Impacts .................................................................. 4-16 

25 4.2 Water-Related Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-17 

26 4.2.1 Hydrological Alterations .............................................................................. 4-18 

27 4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-23 

28 4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 4-24 

29 4.2.3.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts .................................................... 4-24 

30 4.2.3.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts ...................................................... 4-25 

31 4.2.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 4-27 

32 4.3 Ecological Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-27 

33 4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts ................................................................. 4-27 

34 4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 4-27 

35 4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Associated Offsite Facilities ................... 4-39 

36 4.3.1.3 Impacts on Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats ............... 4-46 

37 4.3.1.4 Floodplains and Historic Basin Storage ....................................... 4-61 
Draft NUREG-1941 x August 2010 

1 4.3.1.5 Impacts from Fill Acquisition ........................................................ 4-64 

2 4.3.1.6 Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................... 4-65 

3 4.3.1.7 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts .................. 4-66 

4 4.3.1.8 Summary of Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ............................ 4-69 

5 4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-71 

6 4.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity ......................................... 4-72 

7 4.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines .................................... 4-74 

8 4.3.2.3 Aquatic Species and Habitats ...................................................... 4-75 

9 4.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring ....................................................................... 4-78 

10 4.3.2.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Aquatic Impacts ...................... 4-79 

11 4.3.2.6 Summary of Impacts on Aquatic Resources ................................ 4-79 

12 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-79 

13 4.4.1 Physical Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-80 

14 4.4.1.1 Workers and the Local Public ...................................................... 4-80 

15 4.4.1.2 Buildings ...................................................................................... 4-81 

16 4.4.1.3 Roads .......................................................................................... 4-81 

17 4.4.1.4 Aesthetics .................................................................................... 4-82 

18 4.4.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts ...................................................... 4-82 

19 4.4.2 Demography ............................................................................................... 4-83 

20 4.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community ........................................................ 4-84 

21 4.4.3.1 Economy ...................................................................................... 4-85 

22 4.4.3.2 Commercial Fishing ..................................................................... 4-88 

23 4.4.3.3 Taxes ........................................................................................... 4-89 

24 4.4.3.4 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community ..................... 4-91 

25 4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts .......................................... 4-91 

26 4.4.4.1 Transportation .............................................................................. 4-91 

27 4.4.4.2 Recreation ................................................................................... 4-94 

28 4.4.4.3 Housing ........................................................................................ 4-95 

29 4.4.4.4 Public Services ............................................................................ 4-97 

30 4.4.4.5 Education ..................................................................................... 4-99 

31 4.4.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts ..... 4-100 

32 4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts ....................................................... 4-100 

33 4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................................................. 4-101 

34 4.5.1 Physical and Socioeconomic Impacts ...................................................... 4-102 

35 4.5.2 Health Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-103 

36 4.5.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions ........................................................ 4-104 

37 4.5.3.1 Subsistence ............................................................................... 4-104 

38 4.5.3.2 High-Density Communities ........................................................ 4-105 
August 2010 xi Draft NUREG-1941 

1 4.5.4 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................ 4-105 

2 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts ............................................................. 4-105 

3 4.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts ................................................................ 4-108 

4 4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities ............................................. 4-108 

5 4.7.2 Transportation .......................................................................................... 4-109 

6 4.7.3 Summary of Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts ............................... 4-111 

7 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................................................ 4-111 

8 4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health ............................................................... 4-111 

9 4.8.1.1 Public Health .............................................................................. 4-112 

10 4.8.1.2 Construction Worker Health ....................................................... 4-112 

11 4.8.1.3 Summary of Public and Construction Worker Health Impacts ... 4-113 

12 4.8.2 Noise Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-113 

13 4.8.3 Transporting Construction Materials and Personnel to the Proposed 

14 Site ........................................................................................................... 4-115 

15 4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ........................................... 4-117 

16 4.9 Radiation Exposure to Construction Workers ...................................................... 4-118 

17 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures ...................................................................... 4-118 

18 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents .......................................... 4-118 

19 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents ............................................... 4-119 

20 4.9.4 Total Dose to Site Preparation Workers ................................................... 4-119 

21 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts ................................................. 4-119 

22 4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................................................. 4-119 

23 4.10.1 Impacts on Land ....................................................................................... 4-119 

24 4.10.2 Impacts on Water ..................................................................................... 4-121 

25 4.10.3 Impacts on Air ........................................................................................... 4-122 

26 4.10.4 Summary of Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................ 4-123 

27 4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction 

28 Activities ............................................................................................................... 4-123 

29 4.12 Summary of Construction and Preconstruction Impacts ...................................... 4-135 

30 4.13 References ........................................................................................................... 4-139 

31 5.0 Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site ........................................................................ 5-1 

32 5.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 5-1 

33 5.1.1 The Site, Vicinity, Region, and Offsite Areas ................................................ 5-2 
Draft NUREG-1941 xii August 2010 

1 5.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors ........................................................................ 5-2 

2 5.1.3 Summary of Land-Use Impacts .................................................................... 5-3 

3 5.2 Water-Related Impacts ............................................................................................. 5-3 

4 5.2.1 Hydrological Alterations ................................................................................ 5-4 

5 5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts ....................................................................................... 5-5 

6 5.2.2.1 Surface Water ................................................................................ 5-5 

7 5.2.2.2 Groundwater .................................................................................. 5-7 

8 5.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts .................................................................................. 5-9 

9 5.2.3.1 Surface Water ................................................................................ 5-9 

10 5.2.3.2 Groundwater ................................................................................ 5-16 

11 5.2.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 5-16 

12 5.3 Ecology ................................................................................................................... 5-18 

13 5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts Related to Operations ............................. 5-18 

14 5.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 5-19 

15 5.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Associated Offsite Facilities ................... 5-31 

16 5.3.1.3 Impacts on Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats ............... 5-35 

17 5.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................... 5-41 

18 5.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts .................. 5-42 

19 5.3.1.6 Summary of Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ............................ 5-42 

20 5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts Related to Operation ........................................................ 5-43 

21 5.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Cooling-Water Withdrawal Impacts ........... 5-44 

22 5.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines .................................... 5-54 

23 5.3.2.3 Aquatic Species and Habitats ...................................................... 5-54 

24 5.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Operation ........................................... 5-57 

25 5.3.2.5 Summary of Operational Impacts on Aquatic Resources ............ 5-57 

26 5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-57 

27 5.4.1 Physical Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-58 

28 5.4.1.1 Workers and the Local Public ...................................................... 5-58 

29 5.4.1.2 Buildings ...................................................................................... 5-60 

30 5.4.1.3 Roads .......................................................................................... 5-60 

31 5.4.1.4 Aesthetics .................................................................................... 5-60 

32 5.4.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts ...................................................... 5-61 

33 5.4.2 Demography ............................................................................................... 5-61 

34 5.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community ........................................................ 5-64 

35 5.4.3.1 Economy ...................................................................................... 5-64 

36 5.4.3.2 Commercial and Recreational Fishing ......................................... 5-65 

37 5.4.3.3 Taxes ........................................................................................... 5-65 
August 2010 xiii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 5.4.3.4 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community ..................... 5-67 

2 5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Services ..................................................... 5-67 

3 5.4.4.1 Transportation .............................................................................. 5-67 

4 5.4.4.2 Recreation ................................................................................... 5-68 

5 5.4.4.3 Housing ........................................................................................ 5-69 

6 5.4.4.4 Public Services ............................................................................ 5-69 

7 5.4.4.5 Education ..................................................................................... 5-72 

8 5.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomics Impacts ....................................................... 5-73 

9 5.5 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................ 5-73 

10 5.5.1 Health Impacts ............................................................................................ 5-73 

11 5.5.2 Physical and Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................ 5-74 

12 5.5.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions .......................................................... 5-75 

13 5.5.3.1 Subsistence ................................................................................. 5-75 

14 5.5.3.2 High-Density Communities .......................................................... 5-76 

15 5.5.4 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts .............................................. 5-76 

16 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts from Operations .................................... 5-76 

17 5.7 Meteorology and Air Quality Impacts ..................................................................... 5-78 

18 5.7.1 Air Quality Impacts ..................................................................................... 5-78 

19 5.7.2 Cooling-System Impacts ............................................................................. 5-79 

20 5.7.3 Transmission-Line Impacts ......................................................................... 5-80 

21 5.7.4 Summary of Meteorology and Air Quality Impacts ..................................... 5-81 

22 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts .............................................................................. 5-81 

23 5.8.1 Etiological Agents ....................................................................................... 5-81 

24 5.8.2 Noise .......................................................................................................... 5-82 

25 5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields ..................................................... 5-83 

26 5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields .................................................. 5-84 

27 5.8.5 Occupational Health ................................................................................... 5-85 

28 5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to and from the Proposed 

29 Site ............................................................................................................. 5-86 

30 5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................. 5-87 

31 5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ........................................................... 5-88 

32 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways .................................................................................... 5-88 

33 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public ................................................ 5-89 

34 5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ............................................................... 5-92 
Draft NUREG-1941 xiv August 2010 

1 5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway .......................................................... 5-93 

2 5.9.3 Impacts on Members of the Public ............................................................. 5-93 

3 5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual ...................................................... 5-94 

4 5.9.3.2 Population Dose .......................................................................... 5-96 

5 5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts on Members of the Public ...... 5-97 

6 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers ................................................................. 5-97 

7 5.9.5 Impacts on Non-Human Biota .................................................................... 5-98 

8 5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ............................................................... 5-98 

9 5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway .......................................................... 5-98 

10 5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses ................................................. 5-99 

11 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring ............................................................................ 5-100 

12 5.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................................................. 5-101 

13 5.10.1 Impacts on Land ....................................................................................... 5-101 

14 5.10.2 Impacts on Water ..................................................................................... 5-102 

15 5.10.3 Impacts on Air ........................................................................................... 5-103 

16 5.10.4 Summary of Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................ 5-103 

17 5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents .................................................. 5-104 

18 5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents ............................................................................ 5-105 

19 5.11.2 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Severe Accidents .......................... 5-108 

20 5.11.2.1 Internally Initiated Events ........................................................... 5-108 

21 5.11.2.2 Air Pathway ................................................................................ 5-110 

22 5.11.2.3 Surface-Water Pathway ............................................................. 5-115 

23 5.11.2.4 Groundwater Pathway ............................................................... 5-116 

24 5.11.2.5 Externally Initiated Events ......................................................... 5-116 

25 5.11.2.6 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts ....................................... 5-117 

26 5.11.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ................................................... 5-118 

27 5.11.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts ................................................ 5-121 

28 5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation ................... 5-122 

29 5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts ......................................................................... 5-128 

30 5.14 References ........................................................................................................... 5-131 

31 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning .......................................................... 6-1 

32 6.1 Fuel-Cycle Impacts and Solid-Waste Management ................................................. 6-1 

33 6.1.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................... 6-8 

34 6.1.2 Water Use ..................................................................................................... 6-8 

35 6.1.3 Fossil-Fuel Impacts ...................................................................................... 6-9 
August 2010 xv Draft NUREG-1941 

1 6.1.4 Chemical Effluents ........................................................................................ 6-9 

2 6.1.5 Radiological Effluents ................................................................................. 6-10 

3 6.1.6 Radiological Wastes ................................................................................... 6-12 

4 6.1.7 Occupational Dose ..................................................................................... 6-16 

5 6.1.8 Transportation ............................................................................................ 6-16 

6 6.1.9 Conclusions for Fuel Cycle and Solid-Waste Management ....................... 6-16 

7 6.2 Transportation Impacts ........................................................................................... 6-16 

8 6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel ............................................................ 6-19 

9 6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions ....................................................................... 6-19 

10 6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents ....................... 6-25 

11 6.2.1.3 Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents .................. 6-26 

12 6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel ...................................................................... 6-27 

13 6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions ....................................................................... 6-28 

14 6.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts of Accidents ............................................... 6-34 

15 6.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impact of Spent Fuel Shipments ........................ 6-38 

16 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste ......................................................... 6-39 

17 6.2.4 Conclusions for Transportation ................................................................... 6-41 

18 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts ..................................................................................... 6-42 

19 6.4 References ............................................................................................................. 6-43 

20 7.0 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... 7-1 

21 7.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 7-2 

22 7.2 Water Use and Quality ........................................................................................... 7-10 

23 7.2.1 Water-Use Impacts ..................................................................................... 7-10 

24 7.2.1.1 Surface-Water-Use Impacts......................................................... 7-10 

25 7.2.1.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts ........................................................... 7-13 

26 7.2.2 Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 7-15 

27 7.2.2.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts .................................................... 7-15 

28 7.2.2.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts ...................................................... 7-19 

29 7.3 Ecology ................................................................................................................... 7-20 

30 7.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts ................................................................... 7-20 

31 7.3.1.1 Wildlife and Habitats .................................................................... 7-21 

32 7.3.1.2 Important Species ........................................................................ 7-25 

33 7.3.1.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts on the Terrestrial Ecosystem .. 7-27 

34 7.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts ....................................................................... 7-28 

35 7.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .......................................................... 7-33 
Draft NUREG-1941 xvi August 2010 

1 7.4.1 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................... 7-33 

2 7.4.2 Environmental Justice ................................................................................ 7-37 

3 7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 7-39 

4 7.6 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 7-40 

5 7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants ....................................................................................... 7-40 

6 7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................... 7-41 

7 7.6.3 Summary of Air Quality Impacts ................................................................. 7-43 

8 7.7 Nonradiological Health ........................................................................................... 7-43 

9 7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation ............................................................. 7-45 

10 7.9 Nonradiological Waste ........................................................................................... 7-47 

11 7.10 Postulated Accidents .............................................................................................. 7-48 

12 7.11 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning ................................................ 7-48 

13 7.11.1 Fuel Cycle ................................................................................................... 7-49 

14 7.11.2 Transportation ............................................................................................ 7-49 

15 7.11.3 Decommissioning ....................................................................................... 7-51 

16 7.12 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 7-52 

17 7.13 References ............................................................................................................. 7-54 

18 8.0 Need for Power ................................................................................................................. 8-1 

19 8.1 Description of the Power System ............................................................................. 8-1 

20 8.1.1 Description of the PEF System ..................................................................... 8-2 

21 8.1.2 Evaluation of the FPSC Analytical Process .................................................. 8-4 

22 8.1.2.1 Systematic ..................................................................................... 8-4 

23 8.1.2.2 Comprehensive .............................................................................. 8-5 

24 8.1.2.3 Subject to Confirmation ................................................................. 8-5 

25 8.1.2.4 Responsive to Forecasting Uncertainty ......................................... 8-6 

26 8.2 Determination of Demand ........................................................................................ 8-6 

27 8.2.1 Factors in the FPSC Determination of Need ................................................ 8-6 

28 8.2.1.1 Growth in Demand ......................................................................... 8-7 

29 8.2.1.2 Electric System Reliability .............................................................. 8-7 

30 8.2.1.3 Demand Side Management and Energy Efficiency ....................... 8-8 

31 8.2.2 PEF's Demand for Electricity ........................................................................ 8-9 

32 8.3 Determination of Supply ........................................................................................... 8-9 

33 8.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 8-10 

34 8.5 References ............................................................................................................. 8-10 

35 9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ............................................................................. 9-1 
August 2010 xvii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................ 9-3 

2 9.2 Energy Alternatives .................................................................................................. 9-3 

3 9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity .................................. 9-4 

4 9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity ........................................ 9-6 

5 9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation ........................................................ 9-7 

6 9.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation .......................................... 9-13 

7 9.2.3 Other Alternatives ....................................................................................... 9-20 

8 9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation ......................................................... 9-20 

9 9.2.3.2 Wind Power ................................................................................. 9-21 

10 9.2.3.3 Solar Power ................................................................................. 9-21 

11 9.2.3.4 Hydropower ................................................................................. 9-22 

12 9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy ...................................................................... 9-22 

13 9.2.3.6 Wood Waste ................................................................................ 9-23 

14 9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste ................................................................. 9-23 

15 9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels ...................................................... 9-24 

16 9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells ..................................................................................... 9-24 

17 9.2.4 Combination of Alternatives ........................................................................ 9-25 

18 9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................ 9-27 

19 9.3 Alternative Sites ..................................................................................................... 9-29 

20 9.3.1 Alternative Sites Selection Process ............................................................ 9-29 

21 9.3.1.1 Selection of Region of Interest ..................................................... 9-30 

22 9.3.1.2 Selection of Candidate Areas ...................................................... 9-30 

23 9.3.1.3 Selection of Potential Sites .......................................................... 9-31 

24 9.3.1.4 Selection of Candidate Sites ........................................................ 9-32 

25 9.3.1.5 Selection of Alternative Sites ....................................................... 9-36 

26 9.3.1.6 Selection of the Proposed Site .................................................... 9-37 

27 9.3.1.7 Review Team Evaluation of PEF’s Site-Selection Process ......... 9-38 

28 9.3.1.8 Evaluation of the Alternative Sites ............................................... 9-38 

29 9.3.2 Crystal River Site ........................................................................................ 9-40 

30 9.3.2.1 Land-Use Impacts ........................................................................ 9-45 

31 9.3.2.2 Water Use and Quality ................................................................. 9-49 

32 9.3.2.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ............................................. 9-54 

33 9.3.2.4 Aquatic Resources for the Crystal River Energy Complex Site ... 9-73 

34 9.3.2.5 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 9-79 

35 9.3.2.6 Environmental Justice .................................................................. 9-88 

36 9.3.2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................. 9-90 

37 9.3.2.8 Air Quality .................................................................................... 9-93 

38 9.3.2.9 Nonradiological Health ................................................................. 9-95 

39 9.3.2.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ................................. 9-97 
Draft NUREG-1941 xviii August 2010 

1 9.3.2.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................... 9-98 

2 9.3.3 Dixie Site .................................................................................................... 9-99 

3 9.3.3.1 Land Use and Transmission Lines ............................................ 9-102 

4 9.3.3.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-105 

5 9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-111 

6 9.3.3.4 Aquatic Resources for the Dixie Site ......................................... 9-118 

7 9.3.3.5 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-124 

8 9.3.3.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-136 

9 9.3.3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-140 

10 9.3.3.8 Air Quality .................................................................................. 9-142 

11 9.3.3.9 Nonradiological Health ............................................................... 9-144 

12 9.3.3.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-147 

13 9.3.3.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................. 9-147 

14 9.3.4 Highlands Site .......................................................................................... 9-148 

15 9.3.4.1 Land Use and Transmission Lines ............................................ 9-151 

16 9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-154 

17 9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-159 

18 9.3.4.4 Aquatic Resources for the Highlands Site ................................. 9-166 

19 9.3.4.5 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-171 

20 9.3.4.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-181 

21 9.3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-185 

22 9.3.4.8 Air Quality .................................................................................. 9-187 

23 9.3.4.9 Nonradiological Health ............................................................... 9-189 

24 9.3.4.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-192 

25 9.3.4.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................. 9-193 

26 9.3.5 Putnam Site .............................................................................................. 9-193 

27 9.3.5.1 Land Use and Transmission Lines ............................................ 9-197 

28 9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-199 

29 9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-205 

30 9.3.5.4 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................... 9-212 

31 9.3.5.5 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-217 

32 9.3.5.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-227 

33 9.3.5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-230 

34 9.3.5.8 Air Quality .................................................................................. 9-233 

35 9.3.5.9 Nonradiological Health ............................................................... 9-234 

36 9.3.5.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-237 

37 9.3.5.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................. 9-238 

38 9.3.6 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative Sites 9-239 

39 9.3.6.1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative 

40 Sites ........................................................................................... 9-241 
August 2010 xix Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.3.6.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites ............................................... 9-242 

2 9.3.6.3 Obviously Superior Sites............................................................ 9-245 

3 9.4 System Design Alternatives ................................................................................. 9-245 

4 9.4.1 Heat-Dissipation Systems ........................................................................ 9-246 

5 9.4.1.1 Plant Cooling System – Once-Through Operation ..................... 9-246 

6 9.4.1.2 Cooling Pond and Spray Ponds ................................................. 9-247 

7 9.4.1.3 Dry-Cooling Towers ................................................................... 9-247 

8 9.4.1.4 Combination Wet/Dry-Cooling Tower System ........................... 9-247 

9 9.4.1.5 Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers ............................................. 9-248 

10 9.4.2 Circulating-Water Systems ....................................................................... 9-248 

11 9.4.2.1 Water Supplies .......................................................................... 9-248 

12 9.4.2.2 Water Reuse .............................................................................. 9-249 

13 9.4.2.3 Groundwater .............................................................................. 9-249 

14 9.4.2.4 Surface Water ............................................................................ 9-249 

15 9.4.2.5 Intake Alternatives ..................................................................... 9-249 

16 9.4.2.6 Discharge Alternatives ............................................................... 9-250 

17 9.4.2.7 Water Treatment ........................................................................ 9-250 

18 9.4.3 Service-Water System Alternatives .......................................................... 9-251 

19 9.4.4 Summary of System Design Alternatives ................................................. 9-252 

20 9.5 References ........................................................................................................... 9-252 

21 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 10-1 

22 10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................. 10-3 

23 10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ........................................................ 10-4 

24 10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction and Preconstruction .. 10-4 

25 10.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation ....................................... 10-9 

26 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the 

27 Human Environment ............................................................................................. 10-13 

28 10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................... 10-14 

29 10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources .................................................. 10-14 

30 10.4.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................... 10-14 

31 10.4.1.2 Water Use .................................................................................. 10-15 

32 10.4.1.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota...................................................... 10-15 

33 10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................ 10-15 

34 10.4.1.5 Air and Water ............................................................................. 10-16 

35 10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................. 10-16 

36 10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ..................................................................... 10-16 

37 10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance ............................................................................................ 10-17 
Draft NUREG-1941 xx August 2010 

1 10.6.1 Benefits ..................................................................................................... 10-18 

2 10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits ........................................................................ 10-19 

3 10.6.1.2 Regional Benefits ....................................................................... 10-20 

4 10.6.2 Costs ........................................................................................................ 10-21 

5 10.6.2.1 Internal Costs ............................................................................. 10-25 

6 10.6.2.2 External Costs ........................................................................... 10-28 

7 10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs ............................................................... 10-30 

8 10.7 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 10-30 

9 10.8 References ........................................................................................................... 10-31 

10 Appendix A – Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement ......................................... A-1 

11 Appendix B – Organizations Contacted .................................................................................... B-1 

12 Appendix C – NRC and USACE Environmental Review Correspondence ............................... C-1 

13 Appendix D – Scoping Comments and Responses .................................................................. D-1 

14 Appendix E – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses .................. E-1 

15 Appendix F – Key Consultation Correspondence ...................................................................... F-1 

16 Appendix G – Supporting Socioeconomic Documentation ....................................................... G-1 

17 Appendix H – Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications ......................................................... H-1 

18 Appendix I – Carbon Dioxide Footprint Estimates for a Model 1000-MW(e) Light Water 

19 Reactor (LWR) ............................................................................................................................ I-1 

20 Appendix J – Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment .......................... J-1 

21 Appendix K – Wildlife Species Observed During Pedestrian Surveys, 2006 – 2008 ................ K-1
August 2010 xxi Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Figures 

2 2-1 LNP Site Location and Region ......................................................................................... 2-2

3 2-2 LNP Site and Vicinity ....................................................................................................... 2-3

4 2-3 LNP Site and Select Offsite Facilities .............................................................................. 2-4

5 2-4 Principal Land Uses in the Vicinity of the LNP Site ......................................................... 2-6

6 2-5 Locations of the Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors and Substations for the 

7 LNP Site........................................................................................................................... 2-9

8 2-6 Gulf of Mexico as the Source of Makeup Water for the Proposed LNP ......................... 2-15

9 2-7 Location of the LNP Site with Respect to the Adjacent Watersheds and River 

10 Basins ............................................................................................................................ 2-17

11 2-8 Location of the LNP Site with Respect to Sub-Basin Drainage Areas ........................... 2-18

12 2-9 The Hydrologic Setting near the Head of the Cross Florida Barge Canal, Including 

13 Water-Control Structures ............................................................................................... 2-20

14 2-10 The Plant Site for Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 ............................................................ 2-22

15 2-11 LNP Units 1 and 2 Footprint, the 100-Year Flood Plain, and the Estimated Area to 

16 be Disturbed During Construction .................................................................................. 2-23

17 2-12 Local-Scale Model Grid Showing the Location of Proposed LNP Supply Wells, 

18 Adjacent Permitted Users, and Springs ......................................................................... 2-31

19 2-13 Water-Quality Sampling Stations for the Proposed LNP Units ...................................... 2-33

20 2-14 Water-Quality Sampling Stations for the CREC Discharge Canal ................................. 2-34

21 2-15 Cover Types from the LNP Site and Vicinity .................................................................. 2-42

22 2-16 Delineated Wetlands of the LNP Site ............................................................................ 2-49

23 2-17 Important Natural Resources near the LNP Site ........................................................... 2-80

24 2-18 Location of Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC) Discharge Canal in Relation to 

25 the Gulf of Mexico .......................................................................................................... 2-88

26 2-19 Aquatic Sampling Locations in the CFBC and OWR ..................................................... 2-91

27 2-20 Aquatic Sampling Locations for CREC ........................................................................ 2-100

28 2-21 10-Mi Sector Chart ....................................................................................................... 2-123

29 2-22 Regional Sector Chart ................................................................................................. 2-124

30 2-23 Regional Parks and Recreational Areas ...................................................................... 2-140

31 2-24 Regional Recreational Trails ........................................................................................ 2-141

32 2-25 Regional Healthcare Services ..................................................................................... 2-152

33 2-26 Regional Minority Population ....................................................................................... 2-159

34 2-27 Regional African-American Population ........................................................................ 2-160

35 2-28 Regional Hispanic Population ...................................................................................... 2-161

36 2-29 Regional Low-Income Population ................................................................................ 2-162

37 2-30 Physiographic Provinces in the Vicinity of the LNP Site .............................................. 2-173

38 2-31 Relationship of Stratigraphy and Hydrogeologic Units in West-Central Florida ........... 2-174

39 3-1 Proposed LNP Site Footprint ........................................................................................... 3-2
Draft NUREG-1941 xxii August 2010 

1 3-2 Conceptual Drawing with the Proposed Units 1 and 2 Superimposed on the 

2 Proposed Site .................................................................................................................. 3-4

3 3-3 Simplified Flow Diagram of the Reactor Power Conversion System ............................... 3-5

4 3-4 LNP Units 1 and 2 Detailed Site Layout .......................................................................... 3-7

5 3-5 Section View of the Cooling-Water-Intake Structure ....................................................... 3-9

6 3-6 Proposed Cooling-Water-Intake Structure and Barge Unloading Facility Layout .......... 3-10

7 3-7 Discharge Pipeline Route and CREC Discharge Canal ................................................ 3-11

8 3-8 LNP Units 1 and 2 Water-Balance Diagram .................................................................. 3-26

9 4-1 Simulated Incremental Surficial Aquifer Drawdown for 1 Year of Pumping at the 

10 Annual Average Usage Rate ........................................................................................ 4-22

11 4-2 Extent of Project Development-Related Impacts on Delineated Wetlands of the 

12 LNP Site......................................................................................................................... 4-33

13 5-1 Simulated Incremental Surficial Aquifer System (SAS) Drawdown Associated with 

14 LNP Operations ............................................................................................................... 5-6

15 5-2 Local-Scale Groundwater Model Water Balance ............................................................. 5-8

16 5-3 Conceptualization of Flow Within the CFBC-OWR System Under Existing 

17 Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 5-10

18 5-4 Conceptualization of Flow Within the CFBC-OWR System During Low Flows 

19 Ignoring Tidal Effects from the Gulf of Mexico ............................................................... 5-11

20 5-5 Simulated Groundwater Drawdown from Operational Pumping (1.58 Mgd at Year 

21 60) Relative to Wetlands on the Well-Field Site ............................................................ 5-25

22 5-6 Thermal Plume Analysis Using the Finite Volume Community Ocean Model 

23 (FVCOM) Showing the Temperature Difference Between the Current and 

24 Proposed Thermal Discharge Under Summer Conditions at Ebb Tide ......................... 5-50

25 5-7 Thermal Plume Analysis Using the FVCOM Showing the Temperature Difference 

26 Between Current and Proposed Thermal Discharge Under Winter Conditions at 

27 Ebb Tide ........................................................................................................................ 5-50

28 5-8 Salinity Difference Between the Current (CREC Units 1-5) and Proposed (CREC 

29 Units 1-5 and LNP Units 1 and 2) Discharge Plume at Ebb Tide .................................. 5-52

30 5-9 Exposure Pathways to Man ........................................................................................... 5-90

31 5-10 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other Than Man ............................................................... 5-91

32 6-1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option .................................................................. 6-6

33 6-2 Illustration of Truck Stop Model ..................................................................................... 6-31

34 8-1 The PEF Service Territory ............................................................................................... 8-3

35 9-1 Map Highlighting the Florida Counties in Which the Top 20 Potential Sites for New 

36 Nuclear Units Are Located ............................................................................................. 9-33

37 9-2 Dixie County Minority Populations ............................................................................... 9-137

38 9-3 Dixie County Low-Income Populations ....................................................................... 9-138

39 9-4 Highlands Site Minority Populations ............................................................................ 9-182

40 9-5 Highlands Site Low-Income Populations ..................................................................... 9-183

41 9-6 Putnam Site Minority Populations ............................................................................... 9-228
August 2010 xxiii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9-7 Putnam Site Low-Income Populations ......................................................................... 9-229

2 
Draft NUREG-1941 xxiv August 2010 

1 Tables 

2 2-1 Potentially Affected Land Uses and Habitats in Conceptual Transmission-Line 

3 Corridors Associated with the LNP Site in Acres ........................................................... 2-11

4 2-2 Land Use in the Region ................................................................................................. 2-13

5 2-3 Water-Quality Sampling in the CFBC, the Gulf of Mexico, and the CREC 

6 Discharge Canal ............................................................................................................ 2-35

7 2-4 Surface-Water Monitoring at USGS Streamflow Stations near the LNP Site ................ 2-39

8 2-5 Area of Cover Types at the LNP Site ............................................................................. 2-43

9 2-6 Area of Wetland Cover Types at the LNP Site .............................................................. 2-50

10 2-7 FLUCFCS Cover Types Within the Associated Facilities Corridors .............................. 2-56

11 2-8 Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring on the LNP 

12 Site and Associated Facilities ........................................................................................ 2-61

13 2-9 Other Important Species That May Occur on the LNP Site and Associated Offsite 

14 Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 2-81

15 2-10 Benthic Invertebrate Diversity for the CFBC, OWR, and CREC Sampling Events ........ 2-92

16 2-11 Motile Macroinvertebrates Sampled in the CFBC and CREC with Catch per Unit 

17 Effort (CPUE) >1.0 from October 2007 Through November 2008 by Trawl and 

18 Crab Trap....................................................................................................................... 2-93

19 2-12 Fish Species Sampled in the CFBC, OWR, and CREC with CPUE >1.0 from 

20 October 2007 Through November 2008 by Beach Seine, Trawl, Cast Net, Gill Net, 

21 and Minnow Trap ........................................................................................................... 2-93

22 2-13 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species that are Endangered, Threatened, 

23 and Species of Concern .............................................................................................. 2-112

24 2-14 Important Species and Likelihood of Occurrence in Waters Associated with 

25 Construction and Operation of LNP Units 1 and 2 ....................................................... 2-118

26 2-15 Estuarine Essential Fish Habitat Species for the CFBC and CREC Discharge Area .. 2-121

27 2-16 Population Projections by County from 2000−2080 ..................................................... 2-127

28 2-17 Age and Gender Distribution Within the Region .......................................................... 2-128

29 2-18 Racial and Ethnic Distribution Within the Region ........................................................ 2-128

30 2-19 Income Distribution Within the Region – Percent of Households ................................ 2-129

31 2-20 Summary of Baseline Transient Populations by County .............................................. 2-130

32 2-21 Regional Employment Trends ..................................................................................... 2-133

33 2-22 Regional Per Capita Personal Income ......................................................................... 2-133

34 2-23 Total Sales Taxes Collected in the Regional Counties for Fiscal Year 2004–2005 ..... 2-134

35 2-24 Recreational Areas Within 50 Mi of the LNP site ......................................................... 2-138

36 2-25 Total Trail Distances in the Region .............................................................................. 2-139

37 2-26 Mobile Home and RV Parks in the Region .................................................................. 2-139

38 2-27 Regional Housing Stock in 2000 .................................................................................. 2-142

39 2-28 Regional Public Lodgings: Apartments, Rooming Houses, Rental Condominiums, 

40 and Transient Apartments in 2006 ............................................................................... 2-144
August 2010 xxv Draft NUREG-1941 

1 2-29 Hotels Within 10 Mi of the LNP Site in 2008 ................................................................ 2-144

2 2-30 Projected Levy County Water Demand, from 2000–2020 ........................................... 2-146

3 2-31 Projected Water Demand for Marion County from 2000–2025 .................................... 2-146

4 2-32 Citrus County Forecast of Water Use .......................................................................... 2-147

5 2-33 Estimated Future Raw Sewage Output in Levy County ............................................... 2-148

6 2-34 Medical Facilities Within the Region ............................................................................ 2-151

7 2-35 Estimated Public School Students per Household ...................................................... 2-153

8 2-36 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Proposed Unit 3 and 4 Design Basis Accident 

9 Calculations ................................................................................................................. 2-180

10 2-37 Maximum Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for 

11 Evaluation of Normal Effluents for Receptors of Interest ............................................. 2-181

12 2-38 Construction Noise Sources and Attenuation with Distance ........................................ 2-186

13 3-1 Descriptions and Examples of Activities Associated with Building Units 1 and 2 .......... 3-17

14 3-2 Summary of Resource Commitments Associated with Construction and 

15 Preconstruction of Proposed Units 1 and 2 ................................................................... 3-23

16 3-3 Characterization of Potential Pollutants in the LNP Discharge to the CREC 

17 Discharge Canal ............................................................................................................ 3-35

18 3-4 Summary of Resource Commitments Associated with Operation of Proposed LNP 

19 Units 1 and 2.................................................................................................................. 3-38

20 4-1 LNP Onsite Land-Use Impacts by Major Component ...................................................... 4-5

21 4-2 LNP Offsite Land-Use Impacts by Major Component ...................................................... 4-8

22 4-3 Land-Use Impacts within Representative Transmission-Line Corridors in Acres .......... 4-13

23 4-4 Extent of Project Development-Related Impacts on Cover Types of the LNP Site ....... 4-28

24 4-5 Extent of Project Development-Related Impacts on Cover Types in the LNP 

25 Vicinity ........................................................................................................................... 4-30

26 4-6 Extent of Project Development Impacts to Wetlands on the LNP Site .......................... 4-32

27 4-7 Extent of Development-Related Impacts on Cover Types for the Associated 

28 Offsite Facilities ............................................................................................................. 4-41

29 4-8 Cover Types Present Within Potential Floodplain Compensation Areas ....................... 4-63

30 4-9 Preliminary UMAM Assessment for the LNP Project ..................................................... 4-68

31 4-10 New Jobs at Peak Employment During Construction and Preconstruction Activities .... 4-86

32 4-11 2008 and Projected 2015 P.M. Peak-Hour Roadway LOS Conditions Near the 

33 LNP Site......................................................................................................................... 4-93

34 4-12 2008 and Projected 2015 P.M. Peak-Hour Intersection LOS Conditions Near the 

35 LNP Site......................................................................................................................... 4-93

36 4-13 Regional Housing and Residential Distribution for In-Migrating Construction 

37 Workers ......................................................................................................................... 4-96

38 4-14 Expected Number of Students from In-Migrating Construction Worker Households 

39 at Peak ........................................................................................................................ 4-100

40 4-15 Annual Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Workers and Materials to and 

41 from the Proposed LNP Site for a Single AP1000 Reactor ......................................... 4-117
Draft NUREG-1941 xxvi August 2010 

1 4-16 Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by PEF to Limit Adverse Impacts 

2 During Construction of Proposed Units 1 and 2 .......................................................... 4-125

3 4-17 Summary of Construction and Preconstruction Impacts for Proposed Units 1 and 2 .. 4-135

4 5-1 Thermal Plume Scenarios Simulated by the Review Team ........................................... 5-14

5 5-2 Potential Wetland Impacts by FLUCFCS Cover Types for Simulated Groundwater 

6 Drawdown (1.58 Mgd at Year 60) Using the Recalibrated Groundwater Model ............ 5-26

7 5-3 Chemical Discharges to the Gulf of Mexico from Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 ............ 5-52

8 5-4 Potential Increase in Resident Population Resulting from Operating Proposed 

9 LNP Units 1 and 2.......................................................................................................... 5-62

10 5-5 Distribution of Operations-Related Workers .................................................................. 5-63

11 5-6 Expected Number of Students from In-Migrating Operations Worker Households ....... 5-72

12 5-7 Regulated Source Emissions ......................................................................................... 5-79

13 5-8 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Workers to and from the Proposed 

14 LNP Site for Two Reactors ............................................................................................ 5-87

15 5-9 Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual for Liquid Effluent Releases 

16 from a New Unit ............................................................................................................. 5-92

17 5-10 Annual Individual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous 

18 Effluents for a New Unit ................................................................................................. 5-94

19 5-11 Comparisons of MEI Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluent for a 

20 Single New Nuclear Unit to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Dose Design Objectives ....... 5-95

21 5-12 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Rates with 40 CFR Part 190 

22 Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 5-96

23 5-13 Biota Doses for Proposed Units 1 and 2 ........................................................................ 5-99

24 5-14 Comparison of Biota Doses from the Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 to IAEA 

25 Guidelines for Biota Protection .................................................................................... 5-100

26 5-15 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for the LNP Site DBA Calculations .......................... 5-106

27 5-16 DBA Doses for an AP1000 Reactor for LNP Units 1 and 2 ......................................... 5-107

28 5-17 Mean Environmental Risks from an AP1000 Reactor Severe Accident at the LNP 

29 Site .............................................................................................................................. 5-111

30 5-18 Comparison of Environmental Risks for an AP1000 Reactor at the LNP Site with 

31 Risks for Current-Generation Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150 ....... 5-112

32 5-19 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal 

33 Events for an AP1000 Reactor at the LNP Site with Risks Initiated by Internal 

34 Events for Current Nuclear Power Plants Undergoing Operating License Renewal 

35 Review and Environmental Risks of the AP1000 Reactor at Other Sites .................... 5-113

36 5-20 Comparison of LNP SAMDA Site Characteristics with Site Parameters Specified in 

37 AP1000 DCD Appendix 1B .......................................................................................... 5-119

38 5-21 Design Alternatives Considered for SAMDA in the AP1000 DCD ............................... 5-120

39 5-22 Summary of Proposed Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During 

40 Operation ..................................................................................................................... 5-123

41 5-23 Summary of Operational Impacts at the Proposed LNP Site ....................................... 5-128
August 2010 xxvii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 6-1 Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table of Uranium Fuel-Cycle Environmental 

2 Data ................................................................................................................................. 6-2

3 6-2 Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from All Sources ...... 6-13

4 6-3 Number of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for the Reference LWR and a 

5 Single AP1000 Reactor at the LNP Site ........................................................................ 6-20

6 6-4 RADTRAN 5.6 Input Parameters for Reference LWR Fresh Fuel Shipments ............... 6-21

7 6-5 Radiological Impacts Under Normal Conditions of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel 

8 to the LNP Site or Alternative Sites for a Single AP1000 Reactor ................................. 6-22

9 6-6 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the LNP Site and 

10 Alternative Sites with a Single AP1000 Reactor, Normalized to Reference LWR ......... 6-27

11 6-7 Transportation Route Information for Shipments from the LNP Site and Alternative 

12 Sites to the Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel Disposal Facility ............................................. 6-29

13 6-8 RADTRAN 5.6 Normal (Incident-Free) Exposure Parameters ...................................... 6-30

14 6-9 Normal (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public from 

15 Shipping Spent Fuel from the LNP Site and Alternative Sites to the Proposed 

16 High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain ......................................................... 6-32

17 6-10 Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for 

18 the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor ............................................................................... 6-35

19 6-11 Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for an AP1000 Reactor at the 

20 LNP Site and Alternative Sites, Normalized to Reference 1100-MW(e) LWR Net 

21 Electrical Generation ..................................................................................................... 6-38

22 6-12 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the LNP Site and 

23 Alternative Sites to Yucca Mountain for a Single AP1000 Reactor, Normalized to 

24 Reference LWR ............................................................................................................. 6-39

25 6-13 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the LNP Site and Alternative 

26 Sites for a Single AP1000 Reactor ................................................................................ 6-40

27 6-14 Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the LNP Site 

28 and Alternative Sites with a Single AP1000 Reactor ..................................................... 6-41

29 7-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions 

30 Considered in the Levy Cumulative Analysis ................................................................... 7-3

31 7-2 Contributions of Past Projects to Current Conditions .................................................... 7-35

32 7-3 Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates ............................................... 7-42

33 7-4 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

34 Proposed Units 1 and 2 ................................................................................................. 7-53

35 8-1 Shares of Electricity Sales by PEF Customer Class ........................................................ 8-4

36 8-2 PEF Reserve Margin Forecast by Case .......................................................................... 8-8

37 8-3 PEF's Expected Demand for Electricity 2008-2017 ......................................................... 8-9

38 8-4 Forecasted Installed Capacity at Summer Peak.................................................. 8-10 

39 9-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation at the LNP 

40 Site ................................................................................................................................ 9-14

41 9-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation .............. 9-19
Draft NUREG-1941 xxviii August 2010 

1 9-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources .................... 9-26

2 9-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of New 

3 Nuclear, Coal-Fired, and Natural-Gas-Fired Power-Generating Units, and a 

4 Combination of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 9-27

5 9-5 Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives ............................... 9-28

6 9-6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

7 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Crystal River Alternative Site ................ 9-41

8 9-7 Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on and in the Vicinity of the 

9 Alternative Sites and Offsite Facilities and Corridors, and Associated 

10 Transmission-Line Corridors .......................................................................................... 9-56

11 9-8 Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Crystal River Site .............................. 9-68

12 9-9 Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts for the Crystal River Site ............................................ 9-69

13 9-10 Selected Socioeconomic Data for the EIA for the Crystal River Site ............................. 9-81

14 9-11 Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA 

15 for the Crystal River Site ................................................................................................ 9-82

16 9-12 Educational System Impacts from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years ...... 9-85

17 9-13 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions 

18 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Dixie Site ............................................. 9-100

19 9-14 Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Dixie Alternative Site ....................... 9-113

20 9-15 Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts on the Dixie Site ...................................................... 9-114

21 9-16 Socioeconomic Data for the Dixie Site EIA .................................................................. 9-125

22 9-17 Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA ..... 9-129

23 9-18 Students from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years ................................... 9-133

24 9-19 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other Actions 

25 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Highlands Site ..................................... 9-149

26 9-20 Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Highlands Site ................................. 9-161

27 9-21 Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts for the Highlands Site .............................................. 9-162

28 9-22 Socioeconomic Data for the Highlands Site EIA .......................................................... 9-172

29 9-23 Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA ..... 9-174

30 9-24 Students from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years ................................... 9-179

31 9-25 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

32 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis of the Putnam Alternative Site ....................... 9-195

33 9-26 Summary of Impacts by Land-Use Class for the Putnam Alternative Site ................... 9-207

34 9-27 Total Terrestrial Habitat Impacts for the Putnam Site .................................................. 9-208

35 9-28 Socioeconomic Data for the Putnam Site EIA ............................................................. 9-219

36 9-29 Projected Distribution of Workers and Associated Population Increase in the EIA ..... 9-221

37 9-30 Students from In-Migrating Families at Peak Workforce Years ................................... 9-225

38 9-31 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Sites ................ 9-240

39 10-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and 

40 Preconstruction .............................................................................................................. 10-5

41 10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation .................................... 10-10
August 2010 xxix Draft NUREG-1941 

1 10-3 Summary of Benefits of the Proposed Action .............................................................. 10-19

2 10-4 Summary of Costs of Construction, Preconstruction, and Operation .......................... 10-21

August 2010 xxxi Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Executive Summary 

2 By letter dated July 28, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 

3 Commission) received an application from Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) for combined 

4 construction permits and operating licenses (combined licenses or COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant 

5 (LNP) Units 1 and 2 located in southern Levy County, Florida. The review team’s evaluation is 

6 based on the October 2009 revision to the application, responses to requests for additional 

7 information, and supplemental letters. 

8 The proposed actions related to the LNP Units 1 and 2 application are (1) NRC issuance of 

9 COLs for construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the LNP site, and (2) U.S. Army 

10 Corps of Engineers (USACE) issuance of a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water 

11 Pollution Control Act, (Clean Water Act) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act to 

12 perform certain construction activities on the site. The USACE is participating with the NRC in 

13 preparing this environmental impact statement (EIS) as a cooperating agency and participates 

14 collaboratively on the review team, which consists of NRC staff, contractor staff, and USACE 

15 staff. The reactor specified in the application is Revision 17 to the Westinghouse Electric 

16 Company, LCC AP1000 certified design. 

17 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) directs that 

18 an EIS be prepared for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human 

19 environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of 

20 Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC has determined that the 

21 issuance of a COL under 10 CFR Part 52 is an action that requires an EIS. 

22 The purpose of PEF’s requested NRC action – issuance of the COLs – is to obtain licenses to 

23 construct and operate two new nuclear units. These licenses are necessary but not sufficient 

24 for construction and operation of the units. A COL applicant must also obtain and maintain 

25 permits from other Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies and permitting authorities. 

26 Therefore, the purpose of the NRC’s environmental review of the PEF application is to 

27 determine if two nuclear units of the proposed design can be constructed and operated at the 

28 LNP site without unacceptable adverse impacts on the human environment. The purpose of 

29 PEF’s requested USACE action is to obtain a permit to perform regulated activities that would 

30 affect waters of the United States. 

31 Upon acceptance of the PEF application, NRC began the environmental review process 

32 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to prepare 

33 an EIS and conduct scoping. On December 4, 2008, the NRC held two public meetings in 

34 Crystal River, Florida, to obtain public input on the scope of the environmental review. The staff 

35 reviewed the oral testimony and written comments received during the scoping process and 

36 contacted Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. 
Draft NUREG-1941 xxxii August 2010 

1 To gather information and to become familiar with the sites and their environs, the NRC and its 

2 contractors visited the Dixie, Putnam, and Highlands alternative sites in October 2008. In 

3 December 2008, the review team visited the LNP site and Crystal River alternative site. During 

4 the December 2008 site visit, the review team also conducted a site audit and met with PEF 

5 staff, public officials, and members of the public. 

6 Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the NRC staff’s analyses, which consider and weigh 

7 the environmental effects of the proposed action; (2) potential mitigation measures for reducing 

8 or avoiding adverse effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed 

9 action; and (4) the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action. 

10 To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of a proposed action or alternative 

11 actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on Council on 

12 Environmental Quality guidance found in 40 CFR 1508.27. Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, 

13 Subpart A, Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three significance levels – 

14 SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE: 

15 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

16 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

17 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

18 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

19 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

20 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

21 In preparing this EIS, the review team reviewed the application, including the Environmental 

22 Report (ER) submitted by PEF; consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; and 

23 followed the guidance set forth in NRC’s NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan –

24 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. In addition, the 

25 NRC staff considered the public comments related to the environmental review received during 

26 the scoping process. Comments within the scope of the environmental review are included in 

27 Appendix D of this EIS. 

28 The NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental 

29 aspects of the proposed action is that the COLs be issued as requested. This recommendation 

30 is based on (1) the application, including the ER submitted by PEF; (2) consultation with other 

31 Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent review; (4) the staff’s 

32 consideration of public scoping comments; and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, 

33 including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. The USACE will 

34 issue its Record of Decision based, in part, on this EIS. 
August 2010 xxxiii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental 

2 Protection Agency Notice of Availability of the filing of the draft EIS to allow members of the 

3 public and agencies to comment on the results of the environmental review. During this period, 

4 the NRC and USACE staff will conduct a public meeting near the LNP site to describe the 

5 results of the environmental review and accept public comments. All comments received during 

6 the comment period will be addressed in the final EIS. 

7 The NRC staff’s evaluation of the site safety and emergency preparedness aspects of the 

8 proposed action will be addressed in the NRC’s Safety Evaluation Report anticipated to be 

9 published in 2011. 

August 2010 xxxv Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Abbreviations/Acronyms 

2 7Q10 the lowest average flow over a period of 7 consecutive days that occurs 

3 once every 10 years, on average 

4 μS micro Siemens 

5 

6 AADT annual average daily traffic 

7 ac acre(s) 

8 ACHP Advisory Counsel of Historic Preservation 

9 ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

10 ADM average daily membership 

11 ADT average daily traffic 

12 AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

13 AFUDC allowance for funds used during construction 

14 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

15 a.m. ante meridian 

16 AO archaeological occurence 

17 AP1000 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC AP1000 pressurized water reactor 

18 APE Area of Potential Effect 

19 APT Aquifer Performance Testing 

20 AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

21 AQI Air Quality Index 

22 ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

23 

24 BA biological assessment 

25 BACT Best Available Control Technologies 

26 BDS blowdown system 

27 BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

28 BEBR Bureau of Economic Business Research 

29 BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 

30 bgs below ground surface 

31 BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

32 BMP best management practice 

33 BP Before Present 

34 Bq Becquerel(s) 

35 BRA Biological Research Associates 

36 BRC Bureau of Radiation Control (of the State of Florida Department of Health) 

37 Btu British thermal unit(s) 

38 

39 °C degree(s) Celsius 

40 CAA Clean Air Act 

41 CDC U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

42 CDF core damage frequency 
Draft NUREG-1941 xxxvi August 2010 

1 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

2 CESQG conditionally exempt small quantity generator 

3 CFBC Cross Florida Barge Canal 

4 cfm cubic feet per minute 

5 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

6 cfs cubic feet per second 

7 CGP Construction General Permit 

8 CH2M Hill CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group 

9 CHARTS (Florida’s) Community Health Assessment Resource Tool Set 

10 Ci curie(s) 

11 cm centimeter(s) 

cm3 12 cubic centimeter(s) 

13 cm/s centimeter(s) per second 

14 CO carbon monoxide 

15 CO2 carbon dioxide 

16 COD chemical oxygen demand 

17 COL combined construction permit and operating license or combined license 

18 CORMIX Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System 

19 Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

20 CP construction permit 

21 CPUE catch per unit effort 

22 CPI Consumer Price Index 

23 CR County Road 

24 CRDC Crystal River Discharge Canal 

25 CREC Crystal River Energy Complex 

26 CWA Clean Water Act (aka Federal Water Pollution Control Act) 

27 CWIS cooling-water intake structure 

28 CWS circulating-water system 

29 

30 d day(s) 

31 DA Department of Army 

32 dB decibel(s) 

33 dBA decibel(s) (acoustic) 

34 DBA Design Basis Accident 

35 DCD Design Control Document 

36 DHS (Florida) Department of Human Services 

37 DO dissolved oxygen 

38 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

39 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

40 D/Q deposition values or factors 

41 DSM demand-side management 

42 DTS demineralized water-treatment system 

43 DWRM2 District-Wide Regulation Model, Version 2 

44 

45 E&SCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 
August 2010 xxxvii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 EA environmental assessment 

2 EAB exclusion area boundary 

3 EDG emergency diesel generator 

4 EFH essential fish habitat 

5 EIA Energy Information Administration or Economic Impact Area 

6 EIS environmental impact statement 

7 ELF extremely low frequency 

8 EMF electromagnetic field 

9 EMS emergency management services 

10 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

11 EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

12 EPU Extended Power Uprate 

13 EPZ emergency planning zone 

14 ER Environmental Report 

15 ERP Environmental Resource Permit 

16 ESA U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

17 ESO Environmental Support Organization 

18 ESP early site permit 

19 ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan 

20 ESWEMS Essential Service Water Emergency Makeup System 

21 ESWS Essential Service Water System 

22 

23 °F degree(s) Fahrenheit 

24 FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

25 FAC Florida Administrative Code 

26 FAS Floridan Aquifer System 

27 FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

28 FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service 

29 FDCA Florida Department of Community Affairs 

30 FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

31 FDOE Florida Department of Education 

32 FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

33 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

34 FES Final Environmental Statement 

35 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

36 FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

37 FGT Florida Gas Transmission Company 

38 FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

39 FLUCFCS Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System 

40 FMP fishery managemen plan 

41 FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

42 fps foot (feet) per second 

43 FPSC Florida Public Service Commission 

44 FR Federal Register 

45 FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 
Draft NUREG-1941 xxxviii August 2010 

1 FS Florida Statutes 

2 FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 

3 FSER Final Safety Evaluation Report 

4 ft foot/feet 

ft2 5 square foot/feet 

ft3 6 cubic foot/feet 

7 FTE full-time equivalent (employee) 

8 FVCOM Finite Volume Community Ocean Model 

9 FWDS Fire Water Distribution System 

10 FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (aka Clean Water Act) 

11 FWRI Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

12 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

13 

14 g gram(s) 

15 gal gallon(s) (3) 

16 GBq gigabecquerel 

17 GCC global climate change 

18 GCN Greatest Conservation Need 

19 GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

20 GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

21 GHG greenhouse gas 

22 GI-LLI gastrointestinal lower large intestine

23 GIS geographic information system 

24 gpd gallon(s) per day 

25 gph gallon(s) per hour 

26 gpm gallon(s) per minute 

27 gps gallon(s) per second 

28 GW(e) gigawatt(s) electric 

29 GWh gigawatthour(s) 

30 

31 ha hectare(s) 

32 HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 

33 HAZMAT hazardous material 

34 HBS historic basin storage 

35 HDPE high-density polyethylene 

36 HLW high-level waste 

37 hr hour(s) 

38 hr/yr hour(s) per year 

39 HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

40 Hz hertz 

41 

42 I Interstate 

43 IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

44 IAQCR Interstate Air Quality Control Region 

45 IBA Important Bird Area 
August 2010 xxxix Draft NUREG-1941 

1 ICRP International Council on Radiological Protection 

2 IEA International Energy Agency 

3 IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle 

4 in. inch(es) 

5 in./s inch(es) per second 

6 INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

7 IRP integrated resource planning 

8 IRWST in-containment refueling water storage tank 

9 

10 K-8 kindergarten through 8th grade 

11 K–12 kindergarten through 12th grade 

12 kcfs thousand cubic feet per second 

13 kg kilogram(s) 

14 KH Kimley-Horn 

15 kHz kilo Hertz 

16 km kilometer(s) 

km2 17 square kilometer(s) 

18 kV kilovolt(s) 

19 kVA kilovolt-ampere(s) 

20 kW kilowatt(s) 

21 kWh kilowatt-hour(s) 

22 kW(e) Kilowatt electric 

23 L liter(s) 

24 L/hr liter(s) per hour 

25 L/m liter(s) per minute 

26 lb pound(s) 

27 LC50 the concentration that is lethal to 50 percent of the sample population 

28 LCFS the transmission-line corridor from the proposed LNP to Central Florida 

29 South substation 

30 LCR the transmission-line corridor from the proposed LNP to the CREC 

31 500-kV switchyard 

32 Ld daytime average noise levels 

33 Ldn day-night average noise level 

34 LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable aternative 

35 LLW low-level waste 

36 Ln nighttime average noise levels 

37 LNP Levy Nuclear Plant 

38 LNG liquefied natural gas 

39 LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level 

40 LOCA loss-of-coolant accident 

41 LOS level of service 

42 LPC the transmission-line corridor from the proposed LNP to the proposed 

43 Citrus substation 

44 Lpm liter(s) per minute 

45 LPZ low population zone 
Draft NUREG-1941 xl August 2010 

1 LWA limited work authorization 

2 LWR light water reactor 

3 

4 m meter(s) 

m2 5 square meter(s) 

m3 6 cubic meter(s) 

7 mA milliampere 

8 MACCS(2) Melcor Accident Consequence Code System 

9 MBq megabecquerel(s) 

10 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

11 μg microgram(s) 

12 mg milligram(s) 

13 MCL maximum contaminant level 

14 MEI maximally exposed individual 

15 MFL minimum flows and levels 

16 Mgd million gallons per day 

17 mG milliGauss 

18 mGy milliGray(s) 

19 MHW mean high water 

20 mi mile(s) 

mi2 21 square mile(s) 

22 MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

23 ml milliliter(s) 

24 MLU Multi-Layer Unsteady state (model) 

25 MMBtu a thousand thousand British thermal units 

26 mo month 

27 MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

28 mph mile(s) per hour 

29 mR milliroentgen 

30 mrad millirad 

31 mrem millirem 

32 MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

33 MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

34 MSGP Multi-Sector Generic Permit 

35 msl mean sea level 

36 mSv millisievert(s) 

37 MSW municipal solid waste 

38 MT metric ton(nes) 

39 MTU metric ton(nes) uranium 

40 MW megawatt(s); also monitoring well 

41 MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 

42 MWh megawatt-hour(s) 

43 MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 

44 MWd megawatt-day(s) 

45 
August 2010 xli Draft NUREG-1941 

1 N2 nitrogen 

2 NA not applicable or data not available 

3 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

4 NAGPRA National American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

5 NAVD88 Northern American Vertical Datum of 1988 

6 NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

7 NCI National Cancer Institute 

8 NEI Nuclear Energy Institute 

9 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

10 NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

11 NESC National Electrical Safety Code 

12 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

13 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

14 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

15 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

16 NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level 

17 NOx Nitrogen oxides 

18 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

19 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

20 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

21 NUREG U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical document 

22 NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

23 

24 OCA Owner-Controlled Area 

25 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

26 OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation 

27 OFW Outstanding Florida Water(s) 

28 OMHD Office of Minority Health & Health Disparities 

29 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

30 OWR Old Withlacoochee River 

31 oz ounce(s) 

32 

33 PAM primary amoebic meningoencephalitis 

34 PARS Publicly Available Records System 

35 PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

36 pCi picocuries 

37 PCR polymer chain reaction 

38 PEF Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

39 PEST Model-Independent Parameter Estimation (code) 

40 PIR Public Interest Review 

41 PK preschool 

42 p.m. post meridian 

43 PM particulate matter 

44 PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

45 PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less 
Draft NUREG-1941 xlii August 2010 

1 PMF probable maximum flood 

2 ppm parts per million 

3 PMP probable maximum precipitation 

4 PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

5 ppm part(s) per million 

6 PPSA Power Plant Siting Act 

7 ppt part(s) per thousandPPSA 

8 PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

9 PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

10 pss practical salinity scale 

11 psu practical salinity unit 

12 PWS potable water system 

13 

14 R roentgen(s) 

15 RAI Request for Additional Information 

16 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 

17 RCS reactor coolant system 

18 rem roentgen equivalent man (a special unit of radiation dose) 

19 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 

20 RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index 

21 RIMS Regional Input-Output Modeling System 

22 RLE Required Local Effort 

23 RM river mile 

24 ROD Record of Decision 

25 ROI region of influence or region of interest 

26 ROW Rights-of-way(s) 

27 RV recreational vehicle 

28 Ryr reactor-year 

29 RWS raw water system 

30 

31 μS microsievert(s) 

32 s or sec second(s) 

33 SACTI Seasonal/Annual Cooling Tower Impact (prediction code) 

34 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternatives 

35 SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternatives 

36 SAR Safety Analysis Report 

37 SAS surficial aquifer system 

38 SCA Site Certification Application 

39 SCL straight carpace length 

40 SCR selective catalytic reduction 

41 SDS sanitary drainage system 

42 SER Safety Evaluation Report 

43 SERC Southeastern Electric Reliability Council 

44 SFWMD South Florida Water Management District 

45 SG steam generator 
August 2010 xliii Draft NUREG-1941 

1 SHGW seasonal high groundwater 

2 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office or Officer 

3 SHWL seasonal high-water level 

4 SJRWMD St. Johns River Waste Management District 

5 SMZ Streamside Management Zone 

6 SO2 sulfur dioxide 

7 SOx sulfur oxides 

8 SPCC spill prevention, control, and countermeasures 

9 SQG small quantity generator 

10 SR State Route 

11 SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District 

12 SSC structures, systems, or components 

13 SU Standard Unit 

14 Sv sievert(s) 

15 SWA Small Wild Area 

16 SWAPP Source Water Assessment and Protection Program 

17 SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District 

18 SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan 

19 SWS service-water system 

20 

21 T ton(s) 

22 Tarmac Tarmac America, LLC 

23 TBD to be determined 

24 TBq terabecquerel(s) 

25 T&E threatened and endangered 

26 TCP traditional cultural property 

27 TDS total dissolved solids 

28 TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

29 TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing 

30 TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

31 TN total nitrogen 

32 TP total phosphorus 

33 TRAGIS Transportation Routing Analysis Geographical Information System 

34 TRU transuranic (elements) 

35 TSS total suspended solids 

36 

37 μm micrometer(s) or micron(s) 

38 U-235 uranium-235 

39 U-238 uranium-238 

40 U3O8 triuranium octoxide (“yellowcake”) 

41 UF6 uranium hexafluoride 

42 UFA Upper Floridan Aquifer 

43 UHS ultimate heat sink 

44 UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology 

45 UMTRI University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 
Draft NUREG-1941 xliv August 2010 

1 UO2 uranium dioxide 

2 

3 US U.S. Highway 

4 U.S. United States 

5 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (or Corps) 

6 USC United States Code 

7 USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

8 USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

9 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

10 UTM Universal Transverse Mercator 

11 

12 VOC volatile organic compound 

13 

14 Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

15 WHO World Health Organization 

16 WIC (Citrus County) Women-Infant-Children (Program) 

17 WMA Wildlife Management Area 

18 WRB wastewater-retention basin 

19 WTE waste-to-energy (plant) 

20 WWS wastewaster system 

21 

22 /Q atmospheric dispersion factor(s); annual average normalized air 

23 concentration value(s) 

24 XOQDOQ computer program for the meteorological evaluation of routine effluent 

25 releases at nuclear power plants 

26 yd yard(s) 

yd3 27 cubic yard(s) 

28 yr year(s) 
August 2010 1-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 1.0 Introduction 

2 By letter dated July 28, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 

3 Commission) received an application from Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) for combined 

4 construction permits and operating licenses (COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) Units 1 and 2 

5 (PEF 2008a). The NRC review team’s evaluation is based on the October 2009 revision of the 

6 application (PEF 2009), responses to requests for additional information, and supplemental 

7 information. Documents supporting the review team’s evaluation are listed as references where 

8 appropriate. 

9 The location for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 is a greenfield site in Levy County, Florida, 7.9 mi 

10 east of the Gulf of Mexico and 30.1 mi west of Ocala, Florida. The proposed Units 1 and 2 

11 would be completely within the confines of PEF’s LNP site. In its application, PEF specified the 

12 reactor design as the Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) AP1000 

13 pressurized water reactor (PEF 2009). 

14 On June 2, 2008, PEF submitted a Site Certification Application to the State of Florida 

15 Department of Environmental Protection (PEF 2008b). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

16 (USACE) received a copy of this application on June 30, 2008. In its March 16, 2009 Public 

17 Notice (USACE 2009), the USACE stated that the Environmental Resource Permit application 

18 contained in the Site Certification Application, along with its supporting documents, make up the 

19 Department of Army (DA) permit application for the USACE’s evaluation of regulated impacts to 

20 waters of the United States. Conditions of Certification for LNP Units 1 and 2, associated 

21 facilities, and transmission lines were issued by the State of Florida on August 26, 2009, and 

22 were subsequently modified on January 12, 2010 and February 23, 2010 (FDEP 2010). The 

23 USACE is participating with the NRC in preparing this environmental impact statement (EIS) as 

24 a cooperating agency. 

25 PEF’s application for LNP Units 1 and 2 seeks (1) NRC issuance of COLs for construction and 

26 operation of two new nuclear units at the LNP site, and (2) USACE issuance of a permit 

27 pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) and 

28 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The permit application requests authorization 

29 to affect waters of the United States, including approximately 765 ac of wetlands to construct 

30 the LNP electrical generation facility, and various associated, integral project components, 

31 including electrical transmission lines and substations, access roads, a barge slip, blowdown 

32 pipelines, a make-up water pipeline, and cooling water intake structure. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1941 1-2 August 2010 

1 1.1 Background 

2 A COL is a Commission approval for the construction and operation of a nuclear power facility. 

3 The NRC regulations related to COLs are primarily found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal 

4 Regulations (CFR) Part 52, Subpart C. 

5 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) 

6 (42 USC 4321, et seq.) requires the preparation of an EIS for major Federal actions that 

7 significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented NEPA in 

8 10 CFR Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC has determined that the issuance of a COL 

9 under 10 CFR Part 52 is an action that requires an EIS. 

10 According to 10 CFR 52.80(b), a COL application must contain an Environmental Report (ER). 

11 The ER provides the applicant’s input to the NRC’s EIS. NRC regulations related to ERs and 

12 EISs are found in 10 CFR Part 51. PEF’s ER, which is included as Part 3 of the application, 

13 provides a description of the proposed actions related to the application and PEF’s analysis of 

14 the potential environmental impacts of construction and operation of proposed Units 1 and 2. 

15 1.1.1 Application and Review 

16 The purpose of the PEF application is to obtain COLs to construct and operate two baseload 

17 nuclear power reactors. In addition to the COLs, PEF must obtain and maintain permits from 

18 other Federal, State, and local agencies and permitting authorities. The purpose of the action 

19 PEF has requested from USACE is to obtain a permit to perform regulated activities that would 

20 affect waters of the United States. Collectively, the NRC staff (including its contractor staff at 

21 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Information Systems Laboratories) and USACE staff 

22 who reviewed the ER and decided on impact levels are referred to as the “review team” 

23 throughout this EIS. 

24 1.1.1.1 NRC COL Application Review 

25 PEF’s ER focuses on the environmental effects of construction and operation of two 

26 Westinghouse AP1000 pressurized water reactors (PEF 2009). The NRC regulations setting 

27 standards for review of a COL application are listed in 10 CFR 52.81. Detailed procedures for 

28 conducting the environmental portion of the review are found in guidance set forth in 

29 NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: 

30 Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000) and recent updates, hereafter 

31 referred to as the ESRP. 

32 In this EIS, the review team evaluates the environmental effects of constructing and operating 

33 two AP1000 reactors at the LNP site, including the exemptions and departures from the AP1000 

34 Design Control Document requested by PEF in Part 7 of its application, each with a core power 
Introduction 

August 2010 1-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 rating of 3400 MW(t). The new units would use a closed-cycle, wet-cooling system that uses 

2 mechanical draft cooling towers for heat dissipation. 

3 In addition to considering the environmental effects of the proposed action, the NRC considers 

4 alternatives to the proposed action, including the no-action alternative and approval to construct 

5 and operate new reactors at alternative sites. Also, the benefits of the proposed action 

6 (e.g., need for power) and measures and controls to limit adverse impacts are evaluated. 

7 Upon acceptance of PEF’s application, the NRC began the environmental review process by 

8 publishing in the Federal Register on October 24, 2008, a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and 

9 conduct scoping (73 FR 63517). On December 4, 2008, the NRC held two public scoping 

10 meetings in Crystal River, Florida, to obtain public input on the scope of the environmental 

11 review. The NRC staff also contacted Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies to 

12 solicit comments. A list of the agencies and organizations contacted is provided in Appendix B. 

13 The NRC staff reviewed the comments received during scoping and responses were written for 

14 each comment. Comments within the scope of the NRC environmental review and their 

15 associated responses are included in Appendix D. A complete list of the scoping comments 

16 and responses is documented in the Levy Nuclear Plant Combined License Scoping Summary 

17 Report (NRC 2009). 

18 To gather information and to become familiar with the sites and their environs, the NRC and its 

19 contractors visited the Dixie, Putnam, and Highlands alternative sites in October 2008. In 

20 December 2008, the review team visited the LNP site and the Crystal River alternative site. 

21 During the December 2008 site visit, the review team met with PEF staff, public officials, and the 

22 public. Documents related to the LNP site and alternative sites were reviewed and are listed as 

23 references where appropriate. 

24 To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed action or alternative 

25 actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on Council on 

26 Environmental Quality guidance (40 CFR 1508.27). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

27 Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three significance levels established by the 

28 NRC – SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE: 

29 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

30 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

31 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

32 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

33 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

34 important attributes of the resource. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1941 1-4 August 2010 

1 This EIS presents the review team’s analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental 

2 impacts of the proposed action at the LNP site including the environmental impacts associated 

3 with constructing and operating reactors at the site, the impacts of constructing and operating 

4 reactors at alternative sites, the environmental impacts of alternatives to granting the COLs, and 

5 the mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. This 

6 EIS also provides the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission regarding the 

7 issuance of COLs for the proposed Units 1 and 2 at the LNP site. 

8 A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental 

9 Protection Agency (EPA) Notice of Availability of the filing of the draft EIS to allow members of 

10 the public and agencies to comment on the results of the NRC and USACE staffs’ review. A 

11 public meeting will be held near the site during the EIS comment period. This meeting will also 

12 serve as the USACE public hearing to acquire information or evidence that will be considered in 

13 evaluating a proposed DA permit. During this public meeting, members of the review team will 

14 describe the results of the environmental review, provide members of the public with information 

15 to assist them in formulating comments on the EIS and accept comments on the EIS. After the 

16 comment period, the review team will consider all comments and address them in the final EIS. 

17 1.1.1.2 USACE Permit Application Review 

18 The USACE is a cooperating agency with the NRC serving as the lead agency in the 

19 development of this EIS, and has participated as a member of the review team. In carrying out 

20 its regulatory responsibilities, the USACE will complete an independent evaluation of the 

21 applicant’s DA permit application to determine whether to issue or deny a DA permit for this 

22 project. This decision will be documented in the USACE’s Record of Decision (ROD), which will 

23 be issued after publication of the Final EIS. 

24 USACE’s ROD will reference information in the EIS and present any additional information 

25 required by the USACE to support its permit decision. The USACE’s role as a cooperating 

26 agency in the preparation of this EIS is to ensure to the maximum extent practicable that the 

27 information presented is adequate to fulfill the requirements of USACE regulations. The Clean 

28 Water Act, Section 404(b)(1) “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill 

29 Material” (40 CFR Part 230), contains the substantive environmental criteria used by USACE in 

30 evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. USACE’s 

31 Public Interest Review (PIR) (33 CFR 320.4) directs the USACE to consider a number of factors 

32 as part of a balanced evaluation process. USACE’s PIR will be part of its permit decision 

33 document and will not be addressed in this EIS. 

34 As part of the USACE public comment process, USACE released a public notice on March 16, 

35 2009, to solicit comments from the public about PEF’s proposed preconstruction activities at the 

36 LNP site (USACE 2009). Upon release of the draft EIS, USACE will issue a second public 

37 notice that will include notification for the joint USACE public hearing and NRC public meeting. 
Introduction 

August 2010 1-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 1.1.2 Preconstruction Activities 

2 In a final rule dated October 9, 2007, “Limited Work Authorizations (LWAs) for Nuclear Power 

3 Plants” (72 FR 57416), the Commission limited the definition of “construction” to those activities 

4 within its regulatory purview in 10 CFR 51.4. Many of the activities required to construct a 

5 nuclear power plant are not part of the NRC action to license the plant. Activities associated 

6 with building the plant that are not within the purview of the NRC action are grouped under the 

7 term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include clearing and grading, excavating, 

8 erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other associated activities. These 

9 preconstruction activities may take place before the application for a COL is submitted, during 

10 the review of a COL application, or after a COL is granted. Although preconstruction activities 

11 are outside of NRC’s regulatory authority, nearly all of them are within the regulatory authority of 

12 local, State, or other Federal agencies. 

13 Because the preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, their impacts are not 

14 reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. Rather, the impacts of the preconstruction 

15 activities are considered in the context of cumulative impacts. In addition, certain 

16 preconstruction activities that require permits from USACE are considered to have direct effects 

17 related to its Federal permitting decision. Chapter 4 describes the relative magnitude of impacts 

18 related to construction and preconstruction activities. 

19 1.1.3 Cooperating Agencies

20 NEPA lays the groundwork for coordination between the lead agency preparing an EIS and 

21 other Federal agencies that may have special expertise regarding an environmental issue or 

22 jurisdiction by law. These other agencies, referred to as “cooperating agencies,” are 

23 responsible for assisting the lead agency through early participation in the NEPA process, 

24 including scoping, by providing technical input to the environmental analysis and by making staff 

25 support available as needed by the lead agency. 

26 In addition to a license from the NRC, most proposed nuclear power plants require a permit 

27 from USACE when impacts on waters of the United States are proposed. Therefore, the NRC 

28 and the USACE decided that the most effective and efficient use of Federal resources in the 

29 review of nuclear power projects would be achieved by a cooperative agreement. On 

30 September 12, 2008, NRC and USACE signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

31 regarding the review of nuclear power plant license applications (USACE and NRC 2008). 

32 Therefore, the Jacksonville District of USACE is participating as a cooperating agency as 

33 defined in 10 CFR 51.14. 

34 As described in the MOU, the NRC is the lead Federal agency, and the USACE is a cooperating 

35 agency in the development of the EIS for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. Under Federal law, 

36 each agency has jurisdiction related to portions of the proposed project as major Federal 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1941 1-6 August 2010 

1 actions that could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The goal of this 

2 cooperative agreement is the development of one EIS that serves the needs of the NRC license 

3 decision process and the USACE permit decision process. While both agencies must meet the 

4 requirements of NEPA, they also have mission requirements that must be met in addition to the 

5 NEPA requirements. NRC makes license decisions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

6 amended (42 USC 2011 et seq.), and USACE makes permit decisions under Section 404 of the 

7 Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. USACE is cooperating 

8 with NRC to ensure to the maximum extent practicable that the information presented in the 

9 NEPA documentation is adequate to fulfill the requirements of USACE regulations; Clean Water 

10 Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, which contain the substantive environmental criteria used by 

11 the USACE in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States; 

12 and the USACE PIR process. 

13 As a cooperating agency, USACE is part of the NRC review team and is involved in all aspects 

14 of the environmental review, including scoping, public meetings, public comment resolution, and 

15 EIS preparation. For the purpose of assessing environmental impacts under NEPA, the EIS 

16 uses the SMALL/MODERATE/LARGE criteria discussed in Section 1.1.1.1 of this EIS. This 

17 approach has been vetted by the Council on Environmental Quality when the NRC established 

18 its environmental review framework for the renewal of operating licenses. However, for permit 

19 decisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, USACE can only permit the least 

20 environmentally damaging practicable alternative and must address public interest factors. The 

21 EIS is intended to provide information to support the USACE permitting decision, as will be 

22 documented in USACE’s Record of Decision. The goal of the process is for USACE to have all 

23 the information necessary to make a permit decision when the final EIS is issued. However, it is 

24 possible that USACE will need additional information from the applicant to complete the permit 

25 documentation; for example, information that the applicant could not make available by the time 

26 the final EIS is issued. Also, any conditions required by USACE, such as implementation of 

27 additional mitigative measures, would be required by a permit if issued by USACE. 

28 1.1.4 Concurrent NRC Reviews 

29 In reviews that are separate but parallel to the EIS process, the NRC staff analyzes the safety 

30 characteristics of the proposed site and emergency planning information. These analyses are 

31 documented in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) issued by NRC. The SER presents the 

32 conclusions reached by NRC regarding (1) whether there is reasonable assurance that two 

33 AP1000 reactors can be constructed and operated at the LNP site without undue risk to the 

34 health and safety of the public; (2) whether the PEF emergency preparedness program for LNP 

35 meets the applicable requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 52, 10 CFR Part 73 and 

36 10 CFR Part 100; and (3) whether site characteristics are such that adequate security plans and 

37 measures referenced in the regulations identified above can be developed. The final SER for 

38 the PEF COL application is expected to be published in 2011.
Introduction 

August 2010 1-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The reactor design referenced in PEF’s COL application for LNP Units 1 and 2 is Revision 17 to 

2 the AP1000 certified design (Westinghouse 2008). Westinghouse submitted Revision 17 to the 

3 AP1000 Design Certification Amendment on September 22, 2008, and it is currently undergoing 

4 NRC review. Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 52 contains NRC regulations related to standard design 

5 certification. An application for a standard design certification undergoes an extensive review. 

6 Revision 15 of the AP1000 design is codified in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. The NRC staff is 

7 currently reviewing Revision 17. Where appropriate, this EIS incorporates results of the review 

8 of Revision 15 and insights from the ongoing review of Revision 17. If the final design is 

9 different from the design considered in the EIS, the NRC staff will determine whether the 

10 changes are significant enough to warrant an additional environmental review. 

11 1.2 The Proposed Federal Actions 

12 The proposed NRC Federal action is issuance, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, of 

13 COLs authorizing the construction and operation of two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at 

14 the LNP site. This EIS provides the NRC staff’s analyses of the environmental impacts that 

15 could result from building and operating the two proposed units at the LNP site or at one of the

16 four alternative sites. These impacts are analyzed by NRC to determine whether the proposed 

17 site is suitable for the two units and whether any of the alternative sites are considered to be 

18 obviously superior to the proposed site. The proposed USACE Federal action is the decision 

19 whether to issue a permit pursuant to the requirements in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

20 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 to authorize certain activities potentially 

21 affecting waters of the United States based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including 

22 cumulative impacts, of the proposed activities on the public interest. If issued, the USACE 

23 permit would authorize the impact in waters of the United States, including wetlands, for the 

24 construction of the LNP electrical generation facility, and various associated, integral project 

25 components, including electrical transmission lines and substations, access roads, a barge slip, 

26 blowdown pipelines, a make-up water pipeline, and cooling water intake structure. The barge slip, 

27 makeup-water-intake structure, and blowdown-discharge structure would be located in 

28 navigable waters. 

29 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions 

30 The continued growth of residential and commercial development in Florida has created an 

31 increased demand for electrical power. The purpose and need of this proposed action – 

32 authorization of the construction and operation of two AP1000 units at the LNP site – is to 

33 provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity for use in the PEF service territory. 

34 The need for additional baseload power is discussed in Chapter 8 of this EIS. 

35 Two COLs from the NRC are needed to construct and operate proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. 

36 Preconstruction and certain long lead-time activities, such as ordering and procuring certain 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1941 1-8 August 2010 

1 components and materials necessary to construct the plant, may begin before the COLs are 

2 granted. PEF must obtain and maintain permits or authorizations from other Federal, State, and 

3 local agencies, and permitting authorities before undertaking certain activities. The ultimate 

4 decision whether or not to build the new units and the schedule for building them are not within 

5 the purview of NRC or USACE and would be determined by the license holder if the 

6 authorizations are granted. 

7 Under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, USACE determines both a basic and an overall project 

8 purpose. Defining the basic project purpose enables USACE to determine whether the activity 

9 is water dependent (40 CFR 230.10(a)(3)). The overall project purpose is used to identify and 

10 evaluate practicable alternatives (40 CFR 230.10(a)(2)). 

11 For this project, USACE has determined the following purpose and need statements: 

12 • Basic Purpose – To meet the public’s need for electric energy. 

13 • Overall Purpose – To meet the public’s need for reliable increased electrical baseload 

14 generating capacity in Progress Energy Florida’s service territory. 

15 For the USACE’s NEPA review, the overall project purpose is consistent with that the purpose 

16 and need for the proposed NRC action. 

17 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Actions 

18 Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA states that EISs are to include a detailed statement analyzing 

19 alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC regulations for implementing Section 102(2) of 

20 NEPA provide for including in an EIS a chapter that discusses the environmental impacts of the 

21 proposed action and the alternatives (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A). Chapter 9 of 

22 this EIS addresses the following five categories of alternatives to the proposed action: (1) the 

23 no-action alternative, (2) energy source alternatives, (3) alternative sites, (4) system design 

24 alternatives, and (5) onsite alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources. 

25 In the no-action alternative, the proposed action would not proceed. The NRC could deny 

26 PEF’s request for the COLs. If the request was denied, construction and operation of the two 

27 new units at the LNP site would not occur and any benefits intended by the approved COLs 

28 would not be realized. Energy source alternatives focus on those alternatives that could 

29 generate baseload power. The alternative selection process to determine alternate site 

30 locations for comparison with the LNP site is addressed below. System design alternatives 

31 include heat-dissipation and circulating-water systems, intake and discharge structures, and 

32 water-use and -treatment systems. In its ER (PEF 2009), PEF defines a region of interest for 

33 use in identifying and evaluating potential sites for power generation. Using this process, PEF 

34 reviewed multiple sites and identified eight candidate sites for this project from which the 

35 alternative sites were selected. The NRC staff evaluated the region of interest, the process by 
Introduction 

August 2010 1-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 which alternative sites were selected, and the environmental impacts of construction and 

2 operation of new power reactors at those sites using reconnaissance-level information in 

3 accordance with ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000). Reconnaissance-level information is data that are 

4 readily available from agencies and other public sources and also can include information 

5 obtained through visits to the site area. The alternative sites include one site owned by PEF 

6 and three other sites. The site owned by PEF is the site of Crystal River Unit 3, an existing 

7 nuclear power reactor located in Citrus County, Florida. The other alternative sites are Dixie, 

8 located in Dixie County, Florida; Highlands, located in Highlands and Glades counties, Florida; 

9 and Putnam, located in Putnam County, Florida. The objective of the comparison of 

10 environmental impacts is to determine if any of the alternative sites are obviously superior to the 

11 LNP site. 

12 In evaluating permit applications under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and 

13 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, USACE is required to consider alternatives in the context of 

14 the applicant’s purpose and need for the project, as well as the purpose and need from a public 

15 interest perspective. USACE is required by regulation to apply the criteria set forth in the 

16 404(b)(1) Guidelines (33 USC 1344; 40 CFR Part 230). These guidelines establish criteria that 

17 must be met for the proposed activities to be permitted pursuant to Section 404. These 

18 guidelines state, in part, that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is 

19 a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have a less adverse impact on 

20 the aquatic ecosystem provided the alternative does not have other significant adverse 

21 consequences (40 CFR 230.10(a)). 

22 1.5 Compliance and Consultations 

23 Before building and operating new units, PEF is required to obtain certain Federal, State, and 

24 local environmental permits, as well as meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 

25 In its ER (PEF 2009), PEF provided a list of environmental approvals and consultations 

26 associated with proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. Potential authorizations, permits, and 

27 certifications relevant to the proposed COLs are included in Appendix H. In the development of 

28 this EIS, the NRC contacted the appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies to identify 

29 any consultation, compliance, permit, or significant environmental issues of concern to the 

30 reviewing agencies that may affect the acceptability of the LNP site for building and operating 

31 the two proposed AP1000 units. A chronology of the correspondence is provided in Appendix 

32 C. A list of key consultation correspondence is provided in Appendix F, which also contains 

33 biological assessments and an essential fish habitat assessment. 

34 1.6 References 

35 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

36 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1941 1-10 August 2010 

1 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

2 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

3 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

4 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

5 10 CFR Part 73. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 73, “Physical Protection of 

6 Plants and Materials.” 

7 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

8 Criteria.” 

9 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

10 Part 320, “General Regulatory Policies.” 

11 40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

12 “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material.” 

13 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

14 Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

15 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

16 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

17 73 FR 63517. October 24, 2008. “Progress Energy Florida, Inc.; Levy Nuclear Power Plant, 

18 Units 1 and 2, Combined License Application and Limited Work Authorization; Notice of Intent to 

19 Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal Register. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

21 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 USC 2011, et seq. 

22 

23 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (also referred to as Clean Water Act). 33 USC 

24 1251, et seq. 

25 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010. Levy Nuclear Power Plant, 

26 Units 1 & 2, Progress Energy Florida, PA08-51B Conditions of Certification, Plant and 

27 Associated Facilities and Transmission Lines. Tallahassee, Florida. 

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

29 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008a. Application for Combined License for Levy 

30 Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2; NRC Project Number 756. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

31 Revision 0. Accession No. ML082260277. 
Introduction 

August 2010 1-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008b. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Site 

2 Certification Application, Volumes 1 through 9. St. Petersburg, Florida. Including Amendments 

3 and Supplemental Information. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/apps.htm#ppn1. 

4 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009. Application for Combined License for Levy Nuclear 

5 Power Plant Units 1 and 2; NRC Project Number 756. St. Petersburg, Florida. Revision 1. 

6 Accession No. ML092860397. 

7 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, as amended. 33 USC 403, et seq.. 

8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Public Notice – Permit Application 

9 No. SAJ-2008-490 (IP-GAH); Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) – Progress Energy Florida, SAJ-2008-

10 490 (IP-GAH), Sheet Index/Explanation for Public Notice. Panama City, Florida. Accession 

11 No. ML090890419.

12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USACE and NRC). 

13 2008. Memorandum of Understanding: Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of 

14 Authorizations to Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Plants. September 12, 2008. 

15 Accession No. ML082540354. 

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan – 

17 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, 

18 Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Scoping Summary Report Related to the 

20 Environmental Scoping Process for the Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Combined 

21 License Application. Washington, D.C. May 28, 2009. Accession No. ML091260469. 

22 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

23 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession 

24 No. ML083230868. 

August 2010 2-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 2.0 Affected Environment 

2 The site proposed by Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) is a greenfield site located in Levy 

3 County, Florida. The site is located 7.9 mi east of the Gulf of Mexico and 30.1 mi west of Ocala, 

4 Florida. The location of proposed Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) Units 1 and 2 is described in 

5 Section 2.1, followed by descriptions of the land, water, ecology, socioeconomics, 

6 environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, geology, meteorology and air quality, 

7 nonradiological health, and radiological environment of the site presented in Sections 2.2 

8 through 2.11, respectively. Section 2.12 examines related Federal projects and consultations, 

9 and references are listed in Section 2.13. 

10 2.1 Site Location 

11 PEF’s location for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 in relationship to the counties, cities, and towns 

12 within a 50-mi radius of the site is shown in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2 shows additional details 

13 within a 6-mi radius of the site for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. The nearest population centers 

14 that have more than 25,000 residents are Ocala, Florida, (30.1 mi east) and Gainesville, Florida 

15 (44.2 mi northeast). The LNP site, consisting of 3105 ac as depicted in Figure 2-3, is generally 

16 bounded by U.S. Highway 19 (US-19) on the west and the Goethe State Forest on the north. A 

17 common corridor will extend south from the LNP site boundary to the Cross Florida Barge Canal 

18 (CFBC), which would include offsite facilities that would support LNP Units 1 and 2 and 

19 transmission lines. The Withlacoochee River, Lake Rousseau (an impounded section of the 

20 Withlacoochee River), Inglis Lock bypass channel, and a section of the CFBC are approximately 

21 3 mi south of the site and run roughly parallel to the site’s southern border. The community of 

22 Inglis is located approximately 4.1 mi southwest of the LNP site. The Crystal River Energy 

23 Complex (CREC), an energy facility also owned by PEF, is located approximately 9.6 mi 

24 southwest of the LNP site. 

25 2.2 Land Use 

26 This section discusses existing conditions related to land-use issues on and in the vicinity 

27 (i.e., the area encompassed within a radius of 6 mi) of the LNP site. Section 2.2.1 describes 

28 the site and vicinity. Section 2.2.2 discusses the existing and proposed transmission-line 

29 corridors. Section 2.2.3 discusses the region, defined as the area within 50 mi of the LNP site 

30 boundary. 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-2 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-1. LNP Site Location and Region (PEF 2009a) 2 
August 2010 2-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-2. LNP Site and Vicinity (PEF 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-4 August 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-3. LNP Site and Select Offsite Facilities (PEF 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity 

2 The LNP site encompasses 3105 ac in an unincorporated area of Levy County, Florida, east of 

3 US-19 and approximately 4 mi north of the Levy-Citrus County border (PEF 2009a). The site is 

4 located in a primarily rural area southwest of Gainesville and west of Ocala, about 9.6 mi 

5 northeast of the CREC. The LNP site, including the planned footprint for proposed LNP Units 1 

6 and 2 and associated support buildings, encompasses an area of approximately 627 ac in the 

7 center of the site, as shown in Figure 2-3. 

8 The LNP site is relatively level with very little variation in surface topography, no rivers, no 

9 streams, and no other major drainage features onsite (PEF 2009a). The site is partially located 

10 within a 100-year floodplain. Much of the site, especially the planned reactor location, has been 

11 in intensive forest plantation (pine tree production and harvesting operations) for over a century 

12 (PEF 2009a). The natural vegetation and configuration of the land surface have been 

13 significantly altered by these operations, resulting in a series of elevated hillocks (pine tree 

14 planting beds) separated by shallow furrows. 

15 Pine plantations (represented onsite by coniferous plantations and wet planted pine plantation) 

16 encompass about 57 percent of the total land use within the site boundaries, cypress swamp 

17 covers almost 13 percent, and mixed wetland hardwoods cover about 10 percent (PEF 2009a, 

18 b). Details about these and other cover types present on the LNP site are provided in 

19 Section 2.4.1.1. Limited transportation, communications, and utilities land uses are present 

20 within the site boundary. No residential, commercial, or industrial services, strip mines, 

21 quarries, or gravel pits are located within the site. Land-use classifications within the LNP site 

22 and vicinity are shown in Figure 2-4. 

23 A common corridor would extend south from the LNP site boundary to the CFBC, continuing 

24 west along the CFBC then south to the CREC. The common corridor would encompass some 

25 offsite facilities and transmission lines. The offsite facilities include the cooling-water intake 

26 pipelines, heavy-haul road, cooling-water intake structure (CWIS), barge slip, barge-unloading 

27 facility, water-supply wells, and associated supply well pipelines. The transmission-line 

28 corridors are described in Section 2.2.2. 

29 As required by Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

30 (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)), PEF consulted with the Florida State Clearinghouse to determine 

31 whether the proposed project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program. PEF 

32 requested a coastal zone consistency determination on June 2, 2008, when its Site Certification 

33 Application was filed. On August 11, 2009, the Florida Siting Board unanimously approved the 

34 project. This decision constitutes the State’s certification of coastal zone consistency (FDEP 

35 2009j). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-6 August 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-4. Principal Land Uses in the Vicinity of the LNP Site (SWFWMD 2004)
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The remainder of this section describes the vicinity within the 6-mi radius of the LNP site 

2 (Figure 2-2). The nearest incorporated municipality is the town of Inglis, located approximately 

3 4 mi from the nearest boundary of the LNP site. While there are small communities and clusters 

4 of homes in the vicinity, the area is sparsely populated. Lake Rousseau lies about 3 mi to the 

5 south. Lake Rousseau is an impoundment of the Withlacoochee River located at the 

6 intersection of Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties. The reservoir has a surface area of 3700 ac 

7 (PEF 2008a). 

8 The two new LNP units would draw makeup cooling water from the CFBC, an incomplete cross9 Florida waterway, located approximately 4 mi south of the location of the proposed reactor units. 

10 The CFBC was a Federal project, however most of its lands (including those in the LNP vicinity) 

11 have been ceded to the State of Florida and incorporated into the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross12 Florida Greenway and Conservation Area. The western portion of the CFBC is a dredged canal 

13 that extends from the Inglis Lock at Lake Rousseau to the Gulf of Mexico. These and other 

14 features within the 6-mi radius of the LNP site are shown in Figure 2-2. 

15 The topography in the vicinity of the LNP site is flat, with the highest point being the highway 

16 overpass spanning the CFBC. From this vantage point, the two natural draft cooling towers of 

17 the nearby CREC can be seen above the tree tops. The vicinity of the LNP site north of the 

18 Withlacoochee River is primarily rural undeveloped land with a few homes and small farms. 

19 About 68 percent of the LNP site vicinity is made up of deciduous forest lands, mixed forest 

20 lands, evergreen forest lands, and forested wetlands. About 8.6 percent of the land in the 

21 vicinity is devoted to residential land use. Croplands and pastures encompass 4.1 percent of 

22 the vicinity, and other agricultural lands encompass 3.9 percent (PEF 2009a). A 1500-ac 

23 private hunting ranch is located near the western border of the site. The 53,398-ac Goethe 

24 State Forest, which is adjacent to the LNP site to the northeast, is managed by the Florida 

25 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (PEF 2009a) (see Figure 2-2). The closest 

26 commercial land uses are the Food Ranch Supermarket, another small grocery store, and two 

27 convenience stores/gas stations, all located in Inglis. Transportation routes in the vicinity of the 

28 LNP site are limited to State and county roads (Figure 2-2). US-19 is a four-lane divided 

29 highway that connects Chiefland to Crystal River west of the LNP site. County Road 40 

30 (CR-40) is a two-lane rural collector road that connects Citrus Springs to Inglis at US-19 south 

31 of the LNP site. No egress limitations are anticipated from the area surrounding the site based 

32 on the current levels of service (LOSs) designations of these highways (PEF 2009a). 

33 Abandoned railroad tracks with only the railroad bed remaining are located along the 

34 northeastern portion of the site and north of State Route 336 (SR-336). No airports or active 

35 railroads are located within the site vicinity. Two pipelines for liquefied natural gas in the vicinity 

36 are owned and operated by Florida Gas Transmission Company. These underground pipelines 

37 are located on the north side of US-19 alongside the abandoned railroad track (PEF 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-8 August 2010 

1 The State of Florida has State, regional, and local planning authorities. Each of the three 

2 counties located within the LNP site and vicinity has a comprehensive land-use plan; Levy 

3 County Comprehensive Plan (Levy County 2008c), Citrus County Comprehensive Plan (Citrus 

4 County 2008), and Marion County Comprehensive Plan (Marion County 2008). In February 

5 2007, Levy County submitted an amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs 

6 (FDCA) to change the LNP site designation to “public use” to allow for a nuclear power7 generating facility and to change the definition of “public use” in Levy County’s 1999 

8 Comprehensive Plan to include public utilities. FDCA approved the amendment. The Citrus 

9 County Comprehensive Plan includes utilities as a potential future land use within the vicinity of 

10 the LNP site. The Marion County Comprehensive Plan also identifies public utilities as a future 

11 land-use element. On September 23, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

12 (FDEP) received a determination from Levy County that PEF’s LNP siting application is 

13 consistent with the county’s existing local land-use plans and zoning ordinances (Florida 

14 Administrative Weekly 2008). 

15 No portion of the LNP site or vicinity constitutes prime farmland as defined by the 

16 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service at Title 7 Code 

17 of Federal Regulations (CFR) 657.5(a). There are several active mining or quarrying activities 

18 within the LNP vicinity, an inactive mine within the vicinity, and the Tarmac King Road 

19 Limestone Mine is being planned by Tarmac America, LLC (Tarmac), as discussed in more 

20 detail in Chapter 7 (PEF 2009a). 

21 2.2.2 Transmission-Line Corridors 

22 No existing transmission lines support the LNP site. Four new 500-kV transmission lines and 

23 two new substations are proposed. Two of the four lines would connect to the proposed Citrus 

24 substation, one would connect to the proposed Central Florida South substation, and one would 

25 connect to the CREC 500-kV switchyard. Approximately 82 mi of transmission-line corridors 

26 would be needed to make these connections (PEF 2009a). The transmission-line corridors 

27 would use PEF’s existing high-voltage transmission-line corridors and other existing linear 

28 corridors and major roads to the maximum extent practicable. Additional 230-kV transmission 

29 lines from the new substations would be constructed to distribute power. These lines would 

30 require about 98 mi of new or widened corridors (PEF 2009k). The locations of the proposed 

31 transmission-line corridors are shown in Figure 2-5. 

32 The Environmental Report (ER) (PEF 2009a) states that the proposed Citrus 1 and 2 500-kV 

33 transmission-line corridor would run south from the LNP site to the proposed Citrus substation in 

34 Citrus County, approximately 9 mi south of the LNP site. The proposed Crystal River 500-kV 

35 transmission line would run a total distance of 14 mi, first going south of the LNP site to the 

36 existing PEF 500-kV/230-kV transmission line, and then turning west and connecting to the 

37 CREC 500-kV switchyard in Citrus County. The proposed Sumter corridor would traverse 

38 approximately 59 mi, starting from the southern boundary of the LNP site, running east- 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 2-5. Locations of the Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors and Substations for the 

3 LNP Site (PEF 2009d)
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-10 August 2010 

1 southeast from the existing Crystal River East substation, and terminating at the proposed 

2 Central Florida South substation between the boundaries of Sumter and Lake Counties. 

3 In addition, several new transmission lines would be required beyond the first substation to 

4 integrate power from the proposed LNP into the Florida electrical grid. These lines would 

5 include four 230-kV lines and one 500-kV line. Two of the 230-kV lines would run from the 

6 proposed Citrus substation to the Crystal River East substation (both in Citrus County); one 

7 would run approximately 38 mi south from the CREC 500-kV switchyard in Citrus County to the 

8 existing Brookridge substation in Hernando County, and one would originate at the existing 

9 Kathleen substation in Polk County and run south to the existing Griffin substation in 

10 Hillsborough County and then west, terminating at the existing Lake Tarpon substation in 

11 Pinellas County. The 500-kV transmission line would run from the Brookridge substation to the 

12 Brooksville West substation (both in Hernando County) (PEF 2009a). In addition, two 69-kV 

13 transmission lines would be required to support construction, both connecting to existing lines 

14 and entering the LNP site from the western and southern borders. These lines would require 

15 about 4.6 mi of new corridor (PEF 2009k). 

16 PEF described the land use and land cover of the eight conceptual corridors amounting to 

17 31,974 ac of land considered in planning the development of the transmission system to 

18 connect the proposed LNP to the grid (see Table 2-1). Because the exact routing of the 

19 transmission lines has not been determined as of publication of this draft EIS, the conceptual 

20 corridors overstate the acreage of land-use impacts that are discussed in Section 4.1.2. 

21 2.2.3 The Region 

22 The 50-mi region surrounding the LNP site is shown in Figure 2-1, including Bronson, the 

23 County Seat of Levy County, and the Levy County communities of Inglis, Yankeetown, 

24 Lebanon, Tidewater, Otter Creek, Williston, Chiefland, and Fanning Springs. The Gulf of 

25 Mexico is located about 7.9 mi west of the LNP site. The interstate highway closest to the LNP 

26 site is Interstate 75 (I-75), which is located approximately 28 mi to the east. Principal highways, 

27 rivers, hiking trails, State forest land, and recreation areas near the LNP site are shown in 

28 Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2. There are no Federally recognized Indian Tribal lands within the 

29 region. 

30 All or portions of the following 11 counties are within 50 mi of the LNP site: Levy, Citrus, 

31 Marion, Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hernando, Lake, Pasco, Putnam, and Sumter. The areas of 

32 land use within these 11 counties are listed in Table 2-2. 
August 2010 2-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment Table 2-1. Potentially Affected Land Uses and Habitats in Conceptual Transmission-Line Corridors Associated with 1 the LNP Site in Acres. 2 FLUCFCS(a) Land Use/Habitat Citrus Crystal River Sumter Levy North/ South Brook- ridge Brooks- ville West Crystal River East Kathleen Total Acres Percent of Acreage 110 Residential, Low Density 242.3 655.7 1023.2 123.5 486.0 490.0 0.0 400.7 3421.4 10.7 120 Residential, Medium Density 0.0 135.4 8.9 9.4 186.3 30.7 0.0 201.6 572.2 1.8 130 Residential, High Density 0.0 13.2 46.9 0.0 16.9 23.1 0.0 80.5 180.5 0.6 140 Commercial and Services 0.0 6.0 182.4 7.9 176.6 101.6 0.0 8.4 482.9 1.5 150 Industrial 0.0 0.0 53.7 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.7 33.6 94.8 0.3 160 Extractive 177.5 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 12.1 217.4 0.7 170 Institutional 10.2 0.5 9.8 0.0 25.7 2.3 0.0 7.0 55.3 0.2 180 Recreational 15.3 11.1 40.8 21.2 33.2 0.4 0.0 10.4 132.5 0.4 182 Golf Courses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 25.4 0.1 190 Open Land 865.4 589.8 874.6 1.0 293.9 67.0 2.2 72.4 2766.1 8.7 210 Cropland and Pastureland 598.7 63.4 5218.8 0.0 0.0 29.5 1.1 643.4 6554.9 20.5 214 Row Crops 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 17.0 0.1 220 Tree Crops 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.2 71.2 0.2 230 Feeding Operations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 3.9 13.1 0.0 240 Nurseries and Vineyards 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 11.4 19.7 0.1 250 Specialty Farms 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 26.4 0.1 260 Other Open Lands (Rural) 0.0 17.9 322.8 150.9 8.1 24.8 0.0 83.2 607.6 1.9 310 Herbaceous 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 320 Shrub and Brushland 32.5 59.3 143.5 2.0 19.5 0.0 10.0 83.5 350.4 1.1 330 Mixed Rangeland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.7 0.0 410 Upland Coniferous Forests 101.5 977.8 1000.9 78.2 1189.1 170.0 13.9 0.0 3531.4 11.0 411 Pine Flatwoods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 59.7 0.2 420 Upland Hardwood Forests 0.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 0.2 430 Upland Hardwood Forests - Continued 676.1 95.5 1362.8 108.7 3.8 0.0 341.1 0.0 2588.0 8.1 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 231.3 231.3 0.7 440 Tree Plantations 387.7 147.1 333.1 702.8 0.0 13.9 839.6 17.2 2441.5 7.6 510 Streams and Waterways 62.1 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 70.3 0.2
Draft NUREG-1941 2-12 August 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-1. (contd) 1 FLUCFCS(a) Land Use/Habitat Citrus Crystal River Sumter Levy North/ South Brook- ridge Brooks- ville West Crystal River East Kathleen Total Acres Percent of Acreage 520 Lakes 10.6 2.9 61.5 0.0 104.6 0.0 0.0 7.5 187.1 0.6 530 Reservoirs 4.5 1.1 37.9 0.6 1.1 0.0 29.0 56.0 130.1 0.4 540 Bays and Estuaries 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 610 Wetland Hardwood Forests 54.4 7.6 632.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 713.5 2.2

615 Steams and Lake Swamps 

(Bottomland) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.7 100.7 0.3

620 Wetland Coniferous Forests 17.7 8.5 13.7 141.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 5.8 190.8 0.6621 Cypress 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 107.6 107.6 0.3630 Wetland Forested Mixed 104.0 0.0 27.2 76.9 0.0 0.0 199.5 93.6 501.1 1.6640 Vegetated Nonforested 

Wetlands 

136.0 36.8 685.4 50.7 89.7 0.0 144.8 0.0 1143.5 3.6

641 Freshwater marshes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.7 187.7 0.6643 Wet Prairies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 15.7 0.0644 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 6.2 0.0650 Nonvegetated 0.0 4.7 15.7 0.0 5.7 7.2 8.0 0.0 41.3 0.1653 Intermittent Ponds 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0740 Disturbed Lands 0.0 22.8 98.5 0.0 8.1 7.8 5.3 0.7 143.2 0.4

810 Transportation 34.6 15.9 506.9 0.0 55.8 12.0 5.9 16.8 647.8 2.0830 Utilities 24.2 642.6 1230.7 9.5 120.7 198.0 787.2 241.4 3254.3 10.2

Linear Run (mi)1 9 14 59 4.6 38 3 0.8 50 178 mi

 Total Acreage 3555.1 3524.5 14,018.7 1485.3 2833.6 1211.6 2414.2 2931.4 31,974.3 100.0 Percent 11.1 11.0 43.8 4.6 8.9 3.8 7.6 9.2 100.0Sources: PEF 2009b, d  (a) FLUCFCS = Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FDEP 2010a). 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-13 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-2. Land Use in the Region

Land Use Area (ha) 

Area 

(ac) 

Percent 

of Region 

Bays and estuaries 185,687 458,826 12.1 

Beaches 9 22 0.0 

Commercial and services 10,348 25,570 0.7 

Confined feeding operations 558 1379 0.0 

Cropland and pasture 266,701 659,009 17.4 

Deciduous forest land 135,465 334,729 8.8 

Dry salt flats 232 573 0.0 

Evergreen forest land 789 1950 0.1 

Forested wetland 137,556 339,896 9.0 

Herbaceous rangeland 3641 8997 0.2 

Industrial 3556 8787 0.2 

Lakes 25,358 62,659 1.7 

Mixed forest land 118,562 292,963 7.7 

Mixed rangeland 16,165 39,943 1.0 

Mixed urban or built-up 5570 13,763 0.4 

Nonforested wetland 226,818 560,460 14.8 

Orchards, groves, vineyards, nurseries, and ornamental 

horticultural areas 

38,524 95,191 2.5 

Other agricultural land 123,605 305,424 8.0 

Other urban or built-up land 127 314 0.0 

Reservoirs 3543 8755 0.2 

Residential 189,352 467,882 12.3 

Sandy areas other than beaches 2 5 0.0 

Shrub and brush rangeland 10,733 26,521 0.7 

Streams and canals 3355 8290 0.2 

Strip mines, quarries, and gravel pits 10,412 25,728 0.7 

Transitional areas 5210 12,874 0.3 

Transportation, communications, and utilities 14,734 36,407 1.0 

Total 1,536,612 3,796,916 100.0 

Source: PEF 2009a

2 Within the region, approximately 17.4 percent of the land is cropland and pasture, 14.8 percent 

3 is nonforested wetland, 12.3 percent is residential, 12.1 percent is bays and estuaries, 

4 9.0 percent is forested wetland, 8.8 percent is deciduous forest land, 8.0 percent is other 

5 agricultural land, and 7.7 percent is mixed forest land (PEF 2009a). There are a number of 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-14 August 2010 

1 limestone mines and aggregate quarries within the region (e.g., Holcim Mine, Inglis Quarry, 

2 Crystal River Quarries, and Gulf Hammock Quarry). 

3 2.3 Water 

4 This section describes the hydrologic processes and waterbodies in and around the LNP site, 

5 the existing water use, and the quality of water in the environment of the proposed LNP Units 1 

6 and 2. This description is limited to only the parts of the hydrosphere that may affect or be 

7 affected by building and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. During operations of 

8 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, the Gulf of Mexico, via the CFBC would be the source of makeup 

9 water for normal plant operations (Figure 2-6). The blowdown from LNP Units 1 and 2 cooling 

10 towers and other treated wastes would be discharged through a new discharge pipeline routed 

11 from the LNP into the existing CREC discharge canal and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. The 

12 CREC consists of five power plants. CREC Unit 3 is a nuclear power plant while the other four 

13 are fossil units. The circulating-water systems of the five units use the CREC discharge canal to 

14 return cooling water to the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, the environment described in this section 

15 includes the following: 

16 • the Gulf of Mexico, because it is the source of makeup water for normal plant operations 

17 and it would receive the effluents discharged from the plant 

18 • the CFBC downstream of the Inglis Lock because its water quality may be affected by water 

19 pulled from the Gulf of Mexico by LNP Units 1 and 2 

20 • the Old Withlacoochee River (OWR, a remnant arm of the Withlacoochee River) below the 

21 Inglis Dam because its water quality may be affected by water pulled from the Gulf of 

22 Mexico by LNP Units 1 and 2 

23 • the Waccasassa River, the Withlacoochee River, Spring Run, and Direct Runoff to Gulf of 

24 Mexico sub-basins because portions of the LNP sites lie in the last three and because the 

25 last two are located within the first 

26 • Lake Rousseau, including the Inglis Dam and Inglis Lock bypass channel and spillway 

27 because they control the flow of the Withlacoochee River downstream of the Inglis Dam and 

28 around the Inglis Lock 

29 • the LNP discharge pipeline and the CREC discharge canal because the former would 

30 convey effluents from the LNP site to the latter for discharge to the Gulf of Mexico 

31 • local surface-water features (lower Withlacoochee River and CFBC) adjacent to the site that 

32 may receive stormwater runoff 

33 • the local and regional groundwater systems, because they are a source of water during 

34 building and operation of LNP Units 1 and 2. 
August 2010 2-15 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-6. Gulf of Mexico as the Source of Makeup Water for the Proposed LNP (PEF 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-16 August 2010 

1 2.3.1 Hydrology 

2 This section describes the site-specific and regional hydrological features that could be affected 

3 by building and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. The hydrologic conditions at the LNP 

4 site are described in Section 2.4 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (PEF 2009k). A 

5 summary of the hydrologic conditions of the LNP site is provided in Section 2.3 of the ER (PEF 

6 2009a). The following descriptions are based on information from the FSAR (PEF 2009k), the 

7 ER (PEF 2009a), and the following sources of publicly available hydrological data: FDEP 2001; 

8 FDEP 2006; FDEP 2009b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k; NOAA 2009a, b. 

9 On a longer-term scale, climate change is a subject of national and international interest. The 

10 recent compilation of the state of knowledge by the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

11 (GCRP), a Federal Advisory Committee, has been considered in preparation of this EIS. 

12 According to the GCRP, it is reasonably foreseeable that sea-level rise may exceed 3 ft by the 

13 end of the century (GCRP 2009). At a location, relative sea-level rise can have two components: 

14 (1) eustatic rise caused by absolute change in water volume of the oceans and (2) apparent rise 

15 in sea level caused by land subsidence. The increase in sea level would result in the saltwater 

16 front in the CFBC moving further inland. 

17 2.3.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology 

18 Figure 2-7 shows the location of the LNP site with respect to the Withlacoochee and the 

19 Waccasassa river basins. Most of the LNP site lies in the Spring Run and Direct Runoff to Gulf 

20 of Mexico sub-basins of the Waccasassa River basin; a small southern portion of the site lies in 

21 the Withlacoochee River basin (Figure 2-8). Neither the Spring Run nor the Direct Runoff to 

22 Gulf of Mexico sub-basins of the Waccasassa River basin contributes runoff to the Waccasassa 

River. The drainage area of the Waccasassa River basin is approximately 936 mi2 23 with an 

24 annual mean discharge of 293 cfs (FDEP 2001). 

25 There are two rivers named Withlacoochee in Florida. The northern Withlacoochee River 

26 originates near Tifton in southern Georgia and flows south to meet with the Suwannee River in 

27 Florida near Ellaville. The confluence of the northern Withlacoochee River with the Suwannee 

28 River at Ellaville is approximately 100 mi north-northwest of the LNP site. The southern 

29 Withlacoochee River originates in Green Swamp near Dade City, Florida and flows north and 

30 west through eight counties before discharging into the Gulf of Mexico near Yankeetown, 

Florida. The southern Withlacoochee River basin is approximately 2100 mi2 31 in size and may be 

32 divided into three portions: the upper portion that extends from its headwaters in the Green 

33 Swamp to its confluence with the Little Withlacoochee River, the middle portion that lies 

34 between its confluence with the Little Withlacoochee River to US-41 just upstream of Lake 

35 Rousseau, and the lower portion that includes Lake Rousseau, the CFBC, and its lowest reach 

36 to the Gulf of Mexico. The Withlacoochee River has an annual mean discharge of 970 cfs 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-17 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 2-7. Location of the LNP Site with Respect to the Adjacent Watersheds and River 

3 Basins (PEF 2009a)
Draft NUREG-1941 2-18 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-8. Location of the LNP Site with Respect to Sub-Basin Drainage Areas (PEF 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-19 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 above Lake Rousseau near Holder, Florida. The drainage area of the Withlacoochee River 

basin at this location is 1825 mi2 2 . 

3 Lake Rousseau, approximately 5.7 mi long, is formed by the Inglis Dam on the Withlacoochee 

4 River near the town of Inglis. The water-surface elevation in the lake is controlled by the Inglis 

5 Dam, the Inglis Lock, and the Inglis Lock bypass channel and spillway. Most of the normal flow 

6 of the river leaves Lake Rousseau entering a bypass channel that parallels the CFBC on the 

7 north. The water eventually goes over a spillway and enters the lower portion of the 

8 Withlacoochee River approximately 1.5 mi downstream of Lake Rousseau. During floods, water 

9 may be discharged over a spillway located on the Inglis Dam into the OWR. The OWR flows 

10 downstream from the spillway to discharge into the CFBC approximately 1.7 mi downstream of 

11 the Inglis Lock. Due to the presence of the CFBC, the OWR is not connected to the lower 

12 Withlacoochee River (Figure 2-9). 

13 The Canal Authority of Florida was created in 1933 to construct and maintain a deep-water 

14 shipping channel across the state (FDEP 2009a), linking the Gulf of Mexico near Inglis to the 

15 Atlantic Ocean near Jacksonville. Construction of the canal, now known as the CFBC, began 

16 under the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act of 1935 but was suspended in 1936 when the 

17 funds were exhausted. In 1942, the U.S. Congress authorized construction of the CFBC and 

18 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) started its construction in 1964. During subsequent 

19 decades, environmental concerns resulted in suspension of construction and eventual 

20 deauthorization of the project in 1990. 

21 All waters in Florida belong to one of five categories, Class I through V, defined by Florida 

22 Administrative Code (FAC) 62-302.400 (FDEP 2009b). In addition, waters worthy of special 

23 protection because of their natural attributes may also be designated Outstanding Florida 

24 Waters (OFWs) as defined by FAC 62-302.700. The State of Florida designates waters in the 

25 national parks, preserves, memorials, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, State Park System and 

26 Wilderness Areas, national forests, seashores, monuments, and marine sanctuaries, scenic 

27 rivers, and other waters within areas specified by State laws as OFWs. OFWs are generally 

28 described as worthy of special protection because of their natural attributes. FDEP is generally 

29 prohibited from issuing permits that would allow direct pollutant discharges to these waters or 

30 allow indirect discharges that would significantly degrade quality of these waters. The lower 

31 Withlacoochee River downstream from the Inglis Lock bypass channel and spillway down to the 

32 Gulf of Mexico is designated as an OFW. The CFBC between Inglis Lock and the Gulf of 

33 Mexico is not designated as an OFW; neither is the OWR. 

34 The river basins that are relevant for the proposed LNP project are Suwannee, Withlacoochee, 

35 and Springs Coast (Figure 2-7). The FDEP adopted a revised list of impaired waters in the 

36 Suwannee and the Spring Coast river basins on May 19, 2009, and the draft verified list of 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-20 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-9. The Hydrologic Setting Near the Head of the Cross Florida Barge Canal, Including Water-Control 2 

Structures (PEF 2009a) 3 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-21 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 impaired waters for the Withlacoochee River basin was published on April 30, 2010 (FDEP 

2 2009c). Several streams, estuaries, and coastal water segments are listed as impaired in the 

3 Waccasassa and Withlacoochee river planning units for coliforms, nutrients, mercury, bacteria, 

4 and dissolved oxygen (FDEP 2009d). In the upper Withlacoochee planning unit, Mud Lake is 

5 listed for nutrients (FDEP 2006). Coastal areas and estuaries on the Springs Coast are listed 

6 for nutrients, bacteria, and mercury (FDEP 2009e). 

7 Historical climate summaries for daily weather stations in the southeast United States, including 

8 Florida, are available from the Southeast Regional Climate Center (SRCC 2010). The review 

9 team obtained monthly precipitation summaries for 13 stations near the LNP site. Mean 

10 monthly precipitation near the LNP site varies from 1.62 to 9.79 inches. Maximum mean 

11 monthly precipitation occurs in the months of July or August and the minimum mean monthly 

12 precipitation occurs in the months of October or November. Based on monthly precipitation 

13 data from the 13 stations, the review team determined that the mean annual precipitation in the 

14 region is approximately 53 inches. 

15 The water-surface elevations in the Gulf of Mexico are subject to tidal fluctuation. The mouth of 

16 the CFBC in the Gulf of Mexico is located approximately 20 mi southeast of Cedar Key, Florida, 

17 where the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains the nearest tide 

18 gauge. The mean tidal range (the difference between the mean high water and mean low 

19 water) at Cedar Key is 0.89 ft and the diurnal range (the difference between mean higher high 

20 water and mean lower low water) is 1.35 ft (NOAA 2009a). The long-term eustatic rise in 

21 eustatic sea level at Cedar Key, Florida, estimated from historical, 1914-to-2006 tide gauge 

22 data, is 0.59 ± 0.06 ft/century (NOAA 2009b). As stated above, land subsidence can affect the 

23 relative sea-level rise observed at a location. Land subsidence can be caused by excessive 

24 withdrawal of groundwater or other pressurizing substances like oil and gas. In areas where the 

25 subsurface material is predominantly inelastic clay, land subsidence may be a permanent effect 

26 because inelastic clays do not regain their original pressurized volume. Section 2.8 below 

27 describes the geology near the LNP site. The principal aquifer near the LNP site, the Floridan, 

28 is a thick sequence of carbonate rock, primarily limestones and dolomites of Tertiary Age. The 

29 Floridan aquifer is overlain by unconsolidated materials. The surface soils near the LNP site 

30 consist of undifferentiated sands. There are no faults or other geologic structures of concern in 

31 the vicinity of the LNP site, which is consistent with information presented in the USGS Ground 

32 Water Atlas (USGS 2000). The area near the LNP site is geologically stable. The proposed 

33 layout of the powerblock area of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 is shown in Figure 2-10 and 

34 Figure 2-11. Most of the LNP site falls within the 100-year floodplain. There are no named 

35 streams on the site. Runoff generally drains to the southwest toward the lower Withlacoochee 

36 River and the Gulf of Mexico.
Draft NUREG-1941 2-22 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-10. The Plant Site for Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 (PEF 2009d) 2 
 Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-23 Draft NUREG-1941 1 Figure 2-11. LNP Units 1 and 2 Footprint, the 100-Year Flood Plain, and the Estimated Area to be Disturbed During 2 Construction (PEF 2009d) 3 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-24 August 2010 

1 2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology 

2 Groundwater aquifers in the region and the vicinity of the LNP site are described in Section 2.3 

3 of the ER (PEF 2009a) and Section 2.4.12.1 of the FSAR (PEF 2009k). Geohydrologic 

4 descriptions provided in these documents are consistent with regional descriptions provided in 

5 Chapter 6 of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ground Water Atlas of the United States 

6 (USGS 2000) for the Floridan aquifer system. In this portion of west-central Florida, 

7 groundwater occurs in a surficial aquifer composed of unconsolidated sediments and an 

8 underlying carbonate rock aquifer known as the Floridan aquifer system. No confining unit 

9 exists between the surficial and Upper Floridan aquifer systems in this area and thus, the two 

10 aquifers are hydraulically connected. Neither of the aquifers is classified as a sole-source 

11 aquifer. The closest sole source aquifer is the Volusia Sole Source Aquifer, located 

12 approximately 80 mi east of the LNP site (EPA 2009). 

13 The surficial aquifer system, which is less permeable than the Floridan aquifer system, is 

14 composed primarily of sands and provides substantial recharge to the Floridan aquifer. The 

15 principal use of the surficial aquifer is for irrigation and domestic use on a small scale. This 

16 aquifer is also subjected to dewatering associated with mining and/or construction activities. In 

17 parts of north and central Florida, the surficial aquifer system and Floridan aquifer system are 

18 hydraulically separated by the Hawthorn formation, a series of clastic marine sediments. At the 

19 LNP site, the surficial aquifer lies directly over the Floridan aquifer limestones of the Avon Park 

20 Formation. The Hawthorn Group and the Tampa, Suwannee, and Ocala limestones are not 

21 present at this location. 

22 The Floridan aquifer system consists of both upper and lower Floridan aquifers. In the vicinity of 

23 the LNP site, the Upper Floridan aquifer is composed entirely of Avon Park limestones. This 

24 aquifer, which is the portion of the Floridan aquifer system that would potentially be affected by 

25 LNP operations, is the main source of potable water (both private and municipal) and spring 

26 flow in west-central Florida. The typical thickness of the Upper Floridan aquifer in the region 

27 near the LNP site, based on regional information for west-central Florida, is estimated to be 750 

28 ft (PEF 2009d). The upper and lower Floridan aquifers are separated by a low-permeability 

29 carbonate rock sequence informally called the middle confining unit. This confining unit is made 

30 up of varying types of carbonate rocks, from very fine-grained limestones to limestone or 

31 dolomite with pore space infilled with anhydrite or quartz. The underlying Lower Floridan aquifer 

32 is less well characterized due to its greater depths and lower number of characterization 

33 boreholes available. In addition, saline conditions generally exist in these deeper intervals and 

34 thus they are not typically used as a potable water source. 

35 A site investigation that included 118 geotechnical borings to characterize subsurface conditions 

36 at the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 locations confirmed this generalized stratigraphy. The 

37 surficial aquifer, which was generally encountered at depths of less than 5 ft, varied in thickness
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-25 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 from 10 to 200 ft, with an average thickness of approximately 50 ft. The surficial aquifer 

2 transitioned into the underlying marine carbonates of the Avon Park Formation gradually rather 

3 than at an abrupt bedding contact. To the maximum depth explored by this investigation 

4 (500 ft), neither the middle confining unit nor the Lower Floridan aquifer was encountered. 

5 However, traces of the evaporite deposits and quartz-infilled porosity typical of the middle 

6 confining unit were observed sporadically in the borings at depths below 400 ft. These borings 

7 may thus have approached the middle confining unit. On this basis, PEF estimates that the 

8 Upper Floridan aquifer is approximately 520 ft thick beneath the LNP site (PEF 2009d). Based 

9 on geophysical logging and measurement of drilling fluid losses during the advancement of 

10 borings, the most productive interval of this aquifer appears to be at depths from 100 to 300 ft 

11 below ground surface (bgs). 

12 Karst is a terrain in which near-surface carbonate rocks have been partially dissolved by 

13 rainwater and groundwater, producing large solution openings that can readily transmit 

14 groundwater and where sinkholes can provide easy connections between the surface and 

15 groundwater (White 1988). Karst is a problem in many areas of Florida. However, few 

16 sinkholes occur near the LNP site (Randazzo and Jones 1997; Miller 1986) and the regional 

17 transmissivity of the Upper Floridan aquifer in the area is less than would be expected for well18 developed karst (USGS 2000). Some of the wetlands onsite may reflect karst development 

19 (PEF 2009a). In most of southern Levy County, the vulnerability of the Floridan aquifer to 

20 contamination from the surface has been classified as “Vulnerable.” However, the proposed 

21 LNP is within 1 to 2 mi of areas classified as “Most Vulnerable” (Baker et al. 2007). 

22 Hydraulic Properties 

23 The Upper Floridan aquifer is very productive and serves as the primary source of spring flows 

24 and potable water for private and municipal supply in western Florida (PEF 2009a). Model25 derived transmissivity distributions developed by the USGS (PEF 2009a) indicate that 

26 transmissivities for the Upper Floridan aquifer in west-central Florida generally range from 

50,000 to 500,000 ft2 27 /d. PEF constructed a local-scale groundwater model as a requirement of 

28 the facility’s Site Certification Application to the State of Florida. This model, which was a 

29 submodel of the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s (SWFWMD’s) District-Wide 

30 Regulation Model, Version 2 (DWRM2) regional groundwater flow model, was used to simulate 

31 both LNP and cumulative groundwater-use impacts (PEF 2009e). Upper Floridan aquifer 

32 transmissivities specified for the model within the boundary of the LNP site ranged from 20,000 

to 240,000 ft2 33 /d. Hydraulic conductivities for the surficial aquifer ranged from 15 to 20 ft/d. 

34 Site-specific hydraulic properties for the surficial and Upper Floridan aquifers were 

35 characterized using both slug test and pumping test methods. ER Section 2.3.1.5.5 (PEF 

36 2009a) describes slug tests that were performed in all 23 wells. Results from these tests were 

37 analyzed using the Bouwer and Rice (1976) method. Hydraulic conductivity estimates ranged 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-26 August 2010 

1 from 0.9 to 28.6 ft/d in the surficial aquifer and from 2.4 to 54.4 ft/d in the Upper Floridan aquifer, 

2 with average reported values of 9.2 and 13.9 ft/d for the surficial and Upper Floridan aquifers, 

3 respectively. It should be noted that the average reported slug test values for both aquifers fall 

4 below the lower end of the hydraulic property range specified in the DWRM2 groundwater flow 

5 model, indicating that test conditions may result in nonrepresentative hydraulic property 

6 estimates. 

7 In addition to the slug testing program, three constant-rate withdrawal (pumping) tests were 

8 conducted at the LNP site (PEF 2009d): one within the surficial aquifer (at LNP Unit 2) and two 

9 within the Upper Floridan aquifer (LNP Units 1 and 2). Test response data were analyzed using 

10 the Multi-Layer Unsteady state (MLU) model of transient well flow in layered aquifer systems. 

11 Variability in observed aquifer response was indicative of the heterogeneous nature of the 

12 aquifers beneath the LNP site. An iterative analysis approach was required because analysis of 

13 the Upper Floridan aquifer data required as input the properties of the surficial aquifer, and 

14 analysis of the surficial aquifer data required as input the properties of the Upper Floridan 

15 aquifer. PEF adopted a composite analysis approach wherein a single set of hydraulic property 

16 values was determined that best matched the observed response at all available monitoring 

17 locations, rather than fitting separate sets of hydraulic properties to different locations. The 

18 MLU model tended to over-predict drawdown at some locations and under-predict drawdown at 

19 others. However, scatter plots comparing the observed and simulated drawdown response for 

20 all monitoring wells indicated a reasonable composite match of the data. 

21 There was good agreement in hydraulic property estimates for tests conducted at the proposed 

22 LNP Units 1 and 2 locations, with horizontal hydraulic conductivity values for the Upper Floridan 

23 aquifer ranging from 120 to 130 ft/d and transmissivity values ranging from 62,000 to 

69,000 ft2 24 /d (PEF 2009d). Comparison of these transmissivity estimates with values specified in 

25 a recalibrated version of the DWRM2 groundwater flow model (see model development 

discussion below) at this location (7900 to 250,000 ft2 26 /d) confirms that values derived from 

27 hydraulic tests conducted at the LNP site fall within the range specified in the model. Results 

28 for the surficial aquifer indicate that, as expected, this aquifer is much less permeable than the 

29 Upper Floridan aquifer, with estimated horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity values of 13 

30 and 9 ft/d, respectively. Comparison of these hydraulic conductivity estimates with horizontal 

31 hydraulic conductivity values specified in the recalibrated DWRM2 groundwater flow model 

32 (PEF 2009f) at this location (0.7 to 85 ft/d) confirms that values derived from hydraulic tests 

33 conducted at the LNP site fall within the range specified in the model. 

34 Potentiometric Surfaces 

35 The simulated preconstruction potentiometric surface for the Floridan aquifer system, based on 

36 PEF’s local-scale groundwater model (PEF 2009f), is generally consistent with regional 

37 descriptions provided by the USGS (USGS 2000, 2008a). The one exception is in the 

38 immediate vicinity of the LNP site where water-level data collected as part of the site 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-27 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 investigation resulted in head values approximately 10 ft higher than indicated by the USGS 

2 potentiometric surface. This magnitude of difference is not unexpected given the regional scale 

3 of the USGS contour map and the fact that LNP site-specific data were not available for 

4 inclusion in the USGS interpretation. Although incorporation of site-specific water-level data did 

5 not significantly affect interpreted groundwater flow directions, the hydraulic gradient across the 

6 LNP site did decrease by approximately 25 percent relative to the original USGS interpretation. 

7 The resulting head contours, which are based on the USGS potentiometric surface with 

8 modifications in the vicinity of the LNP site to honor water-level data collected during the site 

9 investigation, show a potentiometric high to the east of the site and indicate that the direction of 

10 groundwater flow in the vicinity of the LNP site is generally west-southwest at an approximate 

11 gradient of 0.0009 (~5 ft/mi). Discharge areas for the Upper Floridan aquifer include areas 

12 where groundwater moves upward into the surficial aquifer, discharges to local springs, and 

13 discharges to offshore springs in the Gulf of Mexico. 

14 Although no regional maps of the surficial aquifer phreatic surface appear to be available, the 

15 surficial aquifer is thin (approximately 50 ft in the vicinity of the LNP site) and is hydraulically 

16 connected to the Upper Floridan aquifer. Therefore, the surficial aquifer’s phreatic surface is 

17 reasonably expected to closely mimic the potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan aquifer. 

18 Primary discharge areas for the surficial aquifer are the Withlacoochee River and CFBC to the 

19 south and southwest of the site and the saltwater marshes that discharge to the Gulf of Mexico 

20 to the west of the site. Within the boundary of the LNP site, surface recharge associated with 

21 rainfall was specified in the DWRM2 groundwater flow model as generally ranging from 4 to 

22 9 in./yr, with increased recharge (up to 19 in./yr) to the east of the site (PEF 2009f). 

23 The relatively shallow, unconfined groundwater system is influenced by site topography, with 

24 groundwater flowing from a topographic high of approximately 60 ft above msl in the eastern 

25 portion of the site to a topographic low of approximately 30 ft in the southwest portion of the site. 

26 In the central portion of the site, where the topography is relatively flat, the water table is also 

27 relatively flat. Downward vertical gradients are maintained throughout the year between the 

28 surficial and Upper Floridan aquifers near the site of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, but vertical 

29 gradients are expected to reverse in the vicinity of the discharge areas. 

30 ER Section 2.3.1.5.4 (PEF 2009a) describes groundwater levels and movement for the LNP 

31 site. Potentiometric elevations in the aquifers beneath the LPN site are based on 2007 water32 level monitoring data from observation and monitoring wells installed during the site 

33 investigation, including nested monitoring well pairs that measure vertical groundwater gradients 

34 and determine connectivity between the surficial and bedrock aquifers. Shallow wells were 

35 screened within the surficial aquifer, while intermediate and deep wells were screened 

36 completely within the limestone bedrock of the Upper Floridan aquifer. Water levels were 

37 measured quarterly in 2007, during which groundwater levels were observed to occur from 

38 between zero and 8 ft bgs. PEF also installed continuous water-level monitoring stations in two 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-28 August 2010 

1 surficial aquifer-monitoring wells, one each within the footprint of the planned LNP Units 1 and 2 

2 locations. Water-level data from the monitoring stations indicate that the water table fluctuated 

3 by as much as 5 ft from March 2007 through March 2008, with the highest levels in March and 

4 other shorter-duration peaks in August and October. 

5 During the March 2007 high water-table conditions, monitoring data from nested wells at the 

6 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 locations indicate a slightly higher hydraulic head (0.03 to 0.57 ft) 

7 within the surficial aquifer than in the bedrock aquifer, indicating a slight downward vertical 

8 gradient. During lower recharge periods, the water table drops by as much as 5 ft and the 

9 horizontal gradient flattens across the LNP site. Nested wells at the LNP Units 1 and 2 

10 locations continued to show slightly higher hydraulic head within the surficial aquifer when 

11 compared with the bedrock aquifer. The direction (always downward) and magnitude of vertical 

12 gradients measured between the surficial and bedrock aquifers remained relatively constant 

13 throughout the monitoring period. 

14 Water levels were also obtained from two nearby wells monitored by the USGS and having 

15 longer periods of record. These water levels were compared to the 1 year of LNP water-level 

16 data to assess any differences in longer-term trends. These wells are designated as 

17 USGS 290230082412501 Romp 125 Well at Crackertown, FL and USGS 290112082371101 

18 CE 5 USGS OBSER WELL CE 5 NR INGLIS, FL. Both are completed in the Upper Floridan 

19 aquifer. Water levels were obtained from the USGS (USGS 2008b). Given the connectivity 

20 between the Upper Floridan and surficial aquifers at this site, the range in water levels should 

21 be comparable. 

22 For the monitoring period encompassing the LNP pre-application field investigation (March 2007 

23 through March 2008), water-level elevations in LNP wells varied by as much as 5.0 ft. During 

24 this same time period, water-level elevations in wells CE 5 and Romp 125 varied by as much as 

25 4.0 and 4.1 ft, respectively. Over the expanded monitoring period provided by CE 5 (January 

26 1968 through October 2008) and Romp 125 (August 1979 through October 2008), water-level 

27 elevations in these wells varied by as much as 6.5 and 7.7 ft, respectively. These longer-term 

28 data indicate that over a 30-to-40-year time frame, water levels in the vicinity of the proposed 

29 LNP wellfield can be expected to vary by as much as 7 to 8 ft due to normal seasonal climatic 

30 variability. 

31 Model Development 

32 PEF used a local-scale steady-state groundwater model, constructed as a requirement of its 

33 Florida Site Certification Application, to simulate predevelopment, current, and future 

34 potentiometric surfaces for the LNP site and vicinity (PEF 2009e). The local-scale model was a 

35 submodel of the SWFWMD’s DWRM2 regional groundwater flow model. Because this DWRM2 

36 model was calibrated to the USGS regional interpretation of the Upper Floridan aquifer 

37 potentiometric surface, which incorporated only limited information in the vicinity of the LNP site, 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-29 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 a poor fit between simulated and observed heads in the vicinity of the LNP site was obtained 

2 (see discussion of the regional potentiometric surface above). To improve the goodness of fit 

3 over this portion of the model domain, which encompasses the proposed LNP wellfield and thus 

4 is important to the assessment of groundwater-use impacts, the model was recalibrated by PEF 

5 using both site-specific and regional head data. A detailed description of this model and the 

6 recalibration process is provided by PEF (2009d). 

7 Calibration targets included in the recalibration process included (1) site water-level data, 

8 (2) water-level data from other USGS monitored wells within the model domain, and 

9 (3) additional measurement locations synthesized from the USGS potentiometric surface where 

10 no well coverage was available. The calibration was performed in the steady-state mode using 

11 2007 water-level elevations and the Model-Independent Parameter Estimation (PEST) code 

12 (Doherty 2004). Head residuals for the recalibrated model (i.e., the difference between 

13 simulated and observed head values) ranged from 3.25 to 3.87 ft over the full model domain, 

14 and from 0.56 to 2.35 ft within the footprint of the LNP site. The resulting root mean square 

15 calibration error for the full model domain was 1.27 ft. PEF’s model recalibration effort resulted 

16 in significant improvement in model fit where site-specific data was available at the LNP site. 

17 The resulting goodness-of-fit metrics indicate that the model is reasonably well calibrated to 

18 existing site conditions. This recalibrated model was used to assess the impacts of 

19 groundwater use at the LNP site (see Chapter 5). 

20 2.3.2 Water Use 

21 Consideration of water use requires estimating the magnitude and timing of consumptive and 

22 nonconsumptive water uses. Nonconsumptive water use does not result in a reduction in the 

23 available water supply. For example, water withdrawn from the CFBC and used to remove fish 

24 from the intake screens would result in no net change in water supply available to other CFBC 

25 water users if the same volume of water pumped from the CFBC would eventually be returned 

26 back into the CFBC. On the other hand, consumptive water use results in a net reduction of the 

27 water supply available for downstream users. For instance, the cooling-water system withdraws 

28 water for normal cooling. Most of that water is evaporated in the cooling towers, and that 

29 evaporated water would be considered a consumptive loss. The following two sections describe 

30 the consumptive and nonconsumptive users of surface water and groundwater near the LNP 

31 site. 

32 2.3.2.1 Surface-Water Use 

33 The FDEP primarily regulates approximately 6500 public water-supply systems in the state 

34 (FDEP 2009f). In 2008, 66 active public water systems were listed by the FDEP in Levy County 

35 (FDEP 2009g). All of these used groundwater as their source. FDEP listed 572 public water 

36 systems in Marion County that were active in 2008 (FDEP 2009h). None of them used a 

37 surface-water source. FDEP listed 177 public water systems in Citrus County that were active 

38 in 2008 (FDEP 2009i) and none of them used a surface-water source. PEF reported that there 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-30 August 2010 

1 were no known sources of private water supply that used the Withlacoochee River or Lake 

2 Rousseau as their source (PEF 2009a). 

3 PEF stated that, currently, no minimum in-stream flow requirements have been specified for the 

4 lower Withlacoochee River and that the SWFWMD may address this issue in 2011 (PEF 2009f). 

5 2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use 

6 As discussed in Section 2.3.1.2, the Upper Floridan aquifer is the main source of potable water 

7 (both private and municipal) and spring flow in west-central Florida. The surficial aquifer, which 

8 is thin, discontinuous, and low-yielding, is primarily used for irrigation and domestic use on a 

9 small scale. Neither of these aquifers is classified as a sole-source aquifer. Current and 

10 projected future groundwater use in the vicinity of the LNP site are discussed in ER 

11 Sections 2.3.2.3 and 2.3.4.4, respectively (PEF 2009a). 

12 Current groundwater use near the LNP site was identified in three ways: using the SWFWMD 

13 and Suwannee River Water Management District well permitting database, using the FDEP’s 

14 Source Water Assessment and Protection Program database, and performing a land-use 

15 survey. Permits are required for all wells located within the SWFWMD and Suwannee River 

16 Water Management District. Records indicate that between 1970 and 2007, approximately 

17 55,000 well permits were issued within 25 mi of the LNP site. Of these permitted wells, 

18 approximately 77 percent were for domestic water supply, with the remaining wells used for 

19 industrial/fire protection (12 percent), irrigation (9 percent), and public water supply (2 percent). 

20 Based on these data sources, groundwater use by all permitted users within the boundary of the 

21 local-scale groundwater flow model used to assess LNP impacts (Figure 2-12) (PEF 2010), 

22 which is a submodel of the SWFWMD’s DWRM2 regional groundwater flow model, was 

23 specified as 3.51 Mgd in 2001 (PEF 2009e). 

24 Projected future groundwater use by all permitted users within the boundary of the local-scale 

25 groundwater flow model was also estimated by PEF based on population projections from the 

26 2000 U.S. Census. This approach assumes that increases in permitted groundwater usage will 

27 be proportional to increases in population. Between 2001 and 2078, which is the anticipated 

28 LNP closure date (assuming startup in 2018, and 60 years of operation), the projected 

29 population increase was 293 percent. Given this population increase, projected future usage 

30 (not including the proposed LNP) would be expected to increase from 3.51 Mgd to 10.3 Mgd. 

31 There is currently no groundwater use at the LNP site. 

32 2.3.3 Water Quality 

33 The following sections describe the quality of surface-water and groundwater resources in the 

34 vicinity of the LNP site. Monitoring programs for thermal and chemical water quality are also 

35 described. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-31 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 2-12. Local-Scale Model Grid Showing the Location of Proposed LNP Supply Wells, 

3 Adjacent Permitted Users, and Springs (PEF 2010)
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-32 August 2010 

1 2.3.3.1 Surface-Water Quality 

2 PEF described water-quality sampling locations near the LNP site (Figure 2-13) that included six 

3 USGS stations, one station near the Inglis Lock bypass channel in Lake Rousseau (SS-2), four 

4 stations in the CFBC (stations 1−3, and SS-1), four stations in the Gulf of Mexico (stations 4−7), 

5 and four stations in the CREC discharge canal (Figure 2-14 and Table 2-3). 

6 All six USGS stations are located on the Withlacoochee River. The USGS gauge 02313200, 

7 Withlacoochee River at Dunnellon, Florida, is located at the upstream end of Lake Rousseau 

8 (Figure 2-13). Based on water-quality data from May 1966 to April 2009 at this gauge, water 

9 temperature varies from 11.0 to 32.0°C (51.8 to 89.6°F) with a mean of 23.0°C (73.4°F); specific 

10 conductance varies from 165 to 804 S/cm with a mean of 272 S/cm; and dissolved oxygen 

11 varies from 0.9 to 13.2 mg/L with a mean of 6.4 mg/L. The USGS gauge 02313230,

12 Withlacoochee River at Inglis Dam near Dunnellon, is located at the Inglis Dam near the 

13 downstream end of Lake Rousseau (Figure 2-13). Based on water-quality data from March 

14 1963 to June 1999 at this gauge, water temperature varies from 10.5 to 35.0°C (50.9 to 95.0°F) 

15 with a mean of 24.4°C (75.9°F); specific conductivity varies from 152 to 462 S/cm with a mean 

16 of 252 S/cm; and dissolved oxygen varies from 0.4 to 14.0 mg/L with a mean of 6.5 mg/L. The 

17 USGS gauge 02313231, Withlacoochee River below Inglis Dam near Dunnellon, is located 

18 downstream of the Inglis Dam (Figure 2-13). Based on water-quality data from March 1963 to 

19 October 1984 at this gauge, water temperature varies from 10.5 to 32.0°C (50.9 to 89.6°F) with 

20 a mean of 23.5°C (74.3°F); specific conductivity varies from 155 to 11300 S/cm with a mean of 

21 513 S/cm; and dissolved oxygen varies from 1.6 to 10.4 mg/L with a mean of 6.3 mg/L. The 

22 increased specific conductivity at this gauge reflects the influence of estuarine water that moves 

23 with the incoming tide upstream from the Gulf of Mexico via the CFBC and the OWR to just 

24 below the Inglis Dam. 

25 The USGS gauge 02313250, Withlacoochee River bypass channel near Inglis, Florida, is 

26 located just downstream of the spillway that discharges water released from Lake Rousseau to 

27 the lower Withlacoochee River (Figure 2-13). Based on water-quality data from May 1971 to 

28 October 1984 at this gauge, water temperature varies from 14.0 to 30.0°C (57.2 to 86.0°F) with 

29 a mean of 23.5°C (74.3°F); specific conductivity varies from 210 to 380 S/cm with a mean of 

30 263 S/cm; and dissolved oxygen varies from 2.8 to 11.4 mg/L with a mean of 6.6 mg/L. The 

31 USGS gauge 02313272, Withlacoochee River at Chambers Island near Yankeetown, Florida, is 

32 located on the north side of Chambers Island just before the river enters the Gulf of Mexico 

33 (Figure 2-13). Based on water-quality data from September 2005 to October 2008, water 

34 temperature varies from 14.6 to 32.9°C (58.3 to 91.2°F) with a mean of 24.6°C (76.3°F), and 

35 specific conductivity varies from 2020 to 39,500 S/cm with a mean of 24,473 S/cm. 

36 Increased influence of estuarine waters is evident in the specific conductivity data. The USGS 

37 gauge 02313274, Withlacoochee River at Bunglow Pass at Port Inglis, Florida, is located on the 
August 2010 2-33 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-13. Water-Quality Sampling Stations for the Proposed LNP Units (PEF 2009a) 2 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-34 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-14. Water-Quality Sampling Stations for the CREC Discharge Canal (PEF 2009d ) 2 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-35 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-3. Water-Quality Sampling in the CFBC, the Gulf of Mexico, and the CREC Discharge 

2 Canal 

Water Body Station Sampling Dates 

Sampled 

Parameters 

CFBC Station 1 10/16/2007, 10/19/2007 List 1 

Station 2 10/16/2007, 11/19/2007 List 1 

Station 3 10/16/2007, 11/19/2007 List 1 

12/10/2007, 12/12/2007 Temperature 

SS-1, SS-2 3/8/2007, 6/14/2007, 9/13/2007, 12/4/2007 List 2 

Gulf of Mexico Station 4 10/16/2007, 11/19/2007 List 1 

12/10/2007, 12/12/2007 Temperature 

Station 5 10/16/2007, 11/19/2007 List 1 

Station 6 10/16/2007, 11/19/2007 List 1 

Station 7 10/16/2007, 11/19/2007 List 1 

CREC Discharge 

Canal 

CREC Station 1 9/2/2008, 11/17/2008, 2/4/2009, 5/19/2009 List 3 

CREC Station 2 9/2/2008, 11/17/2008, 2/4/2009, 5/19/2009 List 3 

CREC Station 3 9/2/2008, 11/17/2008, 2/4/2009, 5/19/2009 List 3 

CREC Station 4 9/2/2008, 11/17/2008, 2/4/2009, 5/19/2009 List 3 

CREC Units 4 and 5 

Intake 

10/16/2008 List 3 

1/14/2009, 2/3/2009, 5/19/2009 

8/18/2009 

List 3 

List 4 

CREC Units 4 and 5 

Discharge 

10/16/2008 List 3 

1/14/2009, 2/3/2009, 5/19/2009 

 8/17/2009 

List 3 

List 4 

Sources: PEF 2009a, m, n 

List 1 Temperature; Dissolved Oxygen; Specific Conductivity; Salinity; pH; Secchi Depth; and Total Depth 

List 2 Temperature; Dissolved Oxygen; Conductivity; Salinity; pH; Oxygen Reduction Potential; and Turbidity 

List 3 Total Dissolved Solids; Total Suspended Solids; Ammonia; Kjeldahl Nitrogen; Nitrite as N; Phosphorus; Chlorophyll 

a; Pheophytin-a; Chlorophyll a corrected for Pheophytin; Biochemical Oxygen Demand; Chemical Oxygen Demand; 

Orthophosphate; Alkalinity; Chlorides; Sulfate; Sodium; Potassium; Calcium; Magnesium; Mercury; and Lead 

List 4 Gross Alpha; Radium 226; Radium 228; Temperature; Dissolved Oxygen; Conductivity; Salinity; and pH 

3 south side of Chambers Island just before the river enters the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2-13). 

4 Based on water-quality data from November 2005 to October 2008, water temperature varies 

5 from 13.3 to 32.4°C (55.9 to 90.3°F) with a mean of 24.4°C (75.9°F) and specific conductivity 

6 varies from 4730 to 44,500 S/cm with a mean of 26,264 S/cm. Increased influence of 

7 estuarine waters is evident in the specific conductivity data. 

8 PEF conducted water-quality sampling in the CFBC, the Gulf of Mexico, and the CREC 

9 discharge canal (Figure 2-13, Table 2-3). For the sampling stations in the CFBC, PEF reported 

10 the average temperature in the water column to vary from 21.3 to 23.4°C with surface 

11 temperature varying from 20.1 to 29.1°C (PEF 2009a). PEF observed no stratification of 

12 temperature over the depth water temperatures were measured, 0.15 to 5 m. PEF reported no 

13 observed stratification of temperature in the Gulf of Mexico, and the average temperature in the 

14 water column varied from 20.3 to 22.1°C (PEF 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-36 August 2010 

1 For sampling stations 1−3 in the CFBC, PEF reported the average dissolved oxygen in the 

2 water column to vary from 3.7 to 4.6 mg/L with the surface measurements at station SS-1 

3 varying from 0.5 to 8.2 mg/L (PEF 2009a). Dissolved oxygen was observed to decrease slightly 

4 with depth, whereas in the Gulf of Mexico dissolved oxygen increased from east to west with 

5 temporal variations at stations 6 and 7. The average dissolved oxygen in the water column to 

6 vary from 4.2 to 5.8 mg/L (PEF 2009a). 

7 For sampling stations 1−3 in the CFBC, PEF reported the average specific conductivity in the 

8 water column to vary from 34.9 to 40.2 S/cm and the surface specific conductivity measured at 

9 Station SS-1 to vary from 1.9 to 15.7 S/cm (PEF 2009a). The specific conductivity was 

10 observed to increase with depth, and, in the Gulf of Mexico, it exhibited an increase from east to 

11 west with average values that varied from 44.6 to 52.7 S/cm and stratification (specific 

12 conductivity increasing with depth) was observed only at Station 4 (PEF 2009a). 

13 For the sampling stations in the CFBC, PEF reported the median pH to vary from 7.6 to 

14 7.9 standard units (SUs) with only slight variation with depth (PEF 2009a). In the Gulf of 

15 Mexico, PEF observed no stratification and no spatial or temporal trend in pH, with the 

16 measured values varying from 7.9 to 8.1 SU (PEF 2009a). 

17 The salinity in the Gulf of Mexico was observed to increase from east to west with the average 

18 salinity varying from 29.9 to 34.7 parts per thousand (PEF 2009a). PEF observed a salinity 

19 stratification at station 4 that showed salinity increasing with depth. 

20 Currently, the CREC discharge canal is used by CREC Units 1–5 to discharge cooling water to 

21 the Gulf of Mexico. The CREC units’ discharge to the Gulf of Mexico is allowed by the FDEP 

22 via an existing NPDES permit. CREC Unit 3, a nuclear power plant, is scheduled to be uprated. 

23 PEF’s application to the state of Florida for the uprate was approved in August 2008 and the 

24 USACE has issued a public notice (USACE 2010). PEF is expected to submit an application for 

25 the uprate to the NRC in 2010. The cooling-water flow rate for CREC Unit 3 would remain the 

26 same, but the thermal load would increase (PEF 2009k). A new helper cooling tower, located 

27 on the south bank of the discharge canal, would be used to cool the discharged waters in the 

28 canal during critical summer months to meet the NPDES permit requirements. 

29 The FDEP, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) Section 305(b), 

30 prepares a statewide Water Quality Inventory. The FDEP also identifies impaired waterbodies 

31 during this process and lists them on the 303(d) List. Lake Rousseau and the lower 

32 Withlacoochee River appear on the draft 2010 303(d) List as impaired waterbodies because of 

33 the presence of mercury in fish tissue (FDEP 2010b). 

34 Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would discharge cooling-tower blowdown and other treated wastes 

35 to the CREC discharge canal for eventual disposal into the Gulf of Mexico. These discharges 

36 would be regulated by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-37 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality 

2 Groundwater samples were collected from four wells during quarterly monitoring in 2007 for 

3 water-quality determination (PEF 2009a). Measured field parameters (and observed range in 

4 temporally averaged values at each location) included pH (6.45 to 7.01 SU), specific 

5 conductance (0.341 to 0.532 S/cm), dissolved oxygen (0.17 to 0.27 mg/L), and temperature 

6 (22.0 to 23.1°C). Additional groundwater analytes included carbon dioxide, total dissolved 

7 solids, total suspended solids, hardness, chlorine, sulphate, sulphide, alkalinity, bicarbonate, 

8 nitrogen (ammonia, total, and nitrate-nitrite), phosphorus, orthophosphate, biological oxygen 

9 demand, chemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon, and trace metals. Concentrations of 

10 metals were reported for arsenic, boron, calcium, chromium (total), copper, iron, lead, 

11 magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, silica, sodium, zinc, and mercury. For all analytical 

12 parameters that have primary drinking water standards in the State of Florida, none exceeded 

13 the maximum permissible contaminant level. 

14 Monitoring results indicate groundwater near the LNP site is a calcium bicarbonate type water 

15 that is typical of this part of Florida (USGS 2000). Total dissolved solids are within acceptable 

16 limits for potable groundwater and analytes such as nitrate that may indicate contamination are 

17 generally low. 

18 Two of the wells monitored the surficial aquifer and two wells monitored the Upper Floridan 

19 aquifer. Average specific conductance, salinity, and alkalinity values were lower for surficial 

20 aquifer well MW-13S (340 S/cm, 170 mg/L, and 160 mg/L, respectively) than average values 

21 for the other three wells (510 S/cm, 270 mg/L, and 280 mg/L, respectively), which might 

22 indicate a stronger influence from surficial recharge at this location. Water-quality parameters 

23 for the other surficial aquifer well were comparable to those for the two Upper Floridan aquifer 

24 wells, providing additional evidence of connectivity between these two aquifer systems. 

25 Nothing in the analyses suggested any unusual chemical conditions. The December 2007 

26 sampling event did indicate unusual values for both chemical oxygen demand and oxidation27 reduction potential. Chemical oxygen demand was elevated during this sampling event, most 

28 significantly at the MW-13S/14D well pair where the deep well saw an increase from <20 to 

29 240 mg/L. Oxidation-reduction potential also decreased during this sampling event, indicating 

30 more reducing conditions. PEF reviewed these results and identified no data errors (PEF 

31 2009d). One possible explanation is that the December sampling event was preceded by a 

32 relatively dry period, resulting in decreased recharge rates that may have affected aquifer 

33 geochemistry; rainfall that infiltrates into the surficial aquifer is typically more acidic and 

34 oxygenated than groundwater. However, given the limited groundwater-monitoring data 

35 available, confirmation of any seasonal recharge-related impacts was not possible. In addition, 

36 if decreased recharge was responsible for the observed response, similar results would be 

37 expected (but were not observed) for the June 2007 sampling event, which was also preceded 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-38 August 2010 

1 by relatively dry conditions. All monitored analytical parameters that have drinking water 

2 standards in the State of Florida were within limits. 

3 Excessive use of the groundwater resource in coastal regions has the potential to increase the 

4 likelihood and/or magnitude of saltwater intrusion. If the intruding saltwater reaches locations 

5 where freshwater is used, the value of the resource may be diminished considerably. The 

6 potential for vertical migration of saline waters from deeper Floridan aquifer intervals exists at 

7 the site (PEF 2009d). The occurrence of brackish water in deeper intervals beneath the LNP 

8 site has not been confirmed by monitoring data, but it can be expected to occur at depths 

9 greater than those explored at the site, based on the common occurrence of deep saline 

10 groundwater in Florida (USGS 2000). 

11 2.3.4 Water Monitoring 

12 Surface-water and groundwater monitoring at and near the proposed site are described below. 

13 2.3.4.1 Surface-Water Monitoring 

14 Surface-water data are available for several USGS streamflow stations near the LNP site. A 

15 brief summary of the observations at these streamflow stations is provided in Table 2-4. 

16 Mean monthly discharge in the Withlacoochee River at Holder varies from 553 cfs in June to 

17 1590 cfs in September. Mean monthly specific conductance at Holder varies from 277 μS/cm to 

18 335 μS/cm in August. Above the Inglis Dam on Lake Rousseau, 179 cfs in June to 758 cfs in 

19 October. The discharge through Lake Rousseau to the lower Withlacoochee River via the Inglis 

20 Lock bypass channel and spillway varies from 923 cfs in May and June to 1110 cfs in 

21 September. Monthly salinity at Yankeetown varies from 0.4 parts per thousand (ppt) to about 

22 2 ppt in March. Monthly bottom salinity at Chambers Island is observed to be 12.3 ppt in July 

23 and 16 ppt in May. These data are consistent with freshwater in the upper reaches of the 

24 Withlacoochee River and increasingly saline water as the lower Withlacoochee River reaches 

25 the Gulf of Mexico. 

26 In addition to the surface-water monitoring parameters listed in Table 2-4, these locations are 

27 also sampled for water-quality parameters including turbidity, dissolved oxygen, biochemical 

28 oxygen demand, pH, biomass, nutrients, organisms, pesticides, and metals. 

29 PEF collected and analyzed quarterly samples at two stations, SS1 and SS2, during 2007 as 

30 part of the preapplication monitoring (Figure 2-13). PEF also collected samples at seven 

31 locations in the CFBC and the Gulf of Mexico during October and December 2007 (Figure 2-13). 

32 The monitored water-quality parameters included temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, 

33 conductivity, oxygen reduction potential, and turbidity (PEF 2009a). The data appear in Section 

34 2.3.3.1 of the ER (PEF 2009a) and are discussed in Section 2.3.3.1. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-39 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-4. Surface-Water Monitoring at USGS Streamflow Stations near the LNP Site 

Station Name (number) Period of Record Parameter(s)

Withlacoochee River near Holder, 

Florida (USGS 02313000) 

March 7, 1987 – July 12, 2006 Mean Daily Water Temperature 

September 1, 1928 – May 17, 2010 Mean Daily Discharge 

March 7, 1987 – July 12, 2006 Mean Daily Specific 

Conductance 

Withlacoochee River at Dunnellon, 

Florida (USGS 02313200) 

February 6, 1963 – May 17, 2010 Mean Daily Gauge Height 

November 11, 2000 – May 17, 2010 Total Daily Precipitation 

Withlacoochee River at Inglis Dam near 

Dunnellon, Florida (USGS 02313230) 

October 1, 1969 – February 13, 2010 Mean Daily Discharge 

October 1, 1985 – May 17, 2010 Mean Daily Gauge Height 

Withlacoochee River below Inglis Dam 

near Dunnellon, Florida 

(USGS 02313231) 

October 1, 1969 – May 17, 2010 Mean Daily Gauge Height 

Withlacoochee River Bypass Channel 

near Inglis, Florida (USGS 02313250) 

January 1, 1970 – May 18, 2010 Mean Daily Discharge 

July 16, 1971 – May 17, 2010 Mean Daily Gauge Height 

Withlacoochee River at Yankeetown, 

Florida (USGS 02313267) 

March 8, 1984 – September 15, 1985 Daily Minimum, Maximum, and 

Mean Salinity 

Withlacoochee River near Yankeetown, 

Florida (USGS 02313269) 

April 5, 1984 – September 30, 1985 Daily Minimum, Maximum, and 

Mean Salinity 

Withlacoochee River at Chambers 

Island near Yankeetown, Florida 

(USGS 02313272) 

March 9, 1984 – October 17, 1985 Daily Minimum, Maximum, and 

Mean Bottom Salinity 

May 4, 1984 – May 17, 2010 Minimum, Maximum, Mean, 

and Tidal Daily Gauge Height 

January 28, 2005 – May 7, 2010 Daily Minimum and Maximum 

Top Specific Conductance 

January 27, 2005 – May 7, 2010 Daily Minimum and Maximum 

Bottom Specific Conductance 

January 27, 2005 – May 17, 2010 Daily Minimum and Maximum 

Top Water Temperature 

Withlacoochee River at Bungalow Pass 

at Port Inglis, Florida (USGS 02313274) 

July 8, 2005 – May 17, 2010 Daily Mean Tidal Gauge Height 

March 30, 2005 – April 25, 2010 Minimum and Maximum Top 

Specific Conductance 

April 19, 2005 – May 17, 2010 Minimum and Maximum Bottom 

Specific Conductance 

March 30, 2005 – May 17, 2010 Daily Minimum and Maximum 

Top Water Temperature 

April 19, 2005 – May 17, 2010 Daily Minimum and Maximum 

Bottom Water Temperature 

Source: PEF 2009a 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-40 August 2010 

1 2.3.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring 

2 Pre-application monitoring of the groundwater system underlying the LNP site included four 

3 quarterly sampling events (March, June, September, and December 2007) in four newly 

4 constructed monitoring wells. Two of the wells monitored the surficial aquifer and two wells 

5 monitored the Upper Floridan aquifer. One well pair was located at the proposed LNP Unit 1 

6 site and the other was located at the proposed LNP Unit 2 site. The data appear in tables 

7 presented in Section 2.3.3.2 of the ER (PEF 2009a) and are discussed above in Section 2.3.3.2. 

8 2.4 Ecology 

9 This section describes the terrestrial and aquatic ecology of the site and vicinity that might be 

10 affected by the proposed action. Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 provide general descriptions of 

11 terrestrial and aquatic environments on the LNP site and in the vicinity of the proposed 

12 associated offsite facilities required to support the development and operation of the LNP site, 

13 including the proposed transmission-line corridors.

14 Detailed descriptions are provided where needed to support the analysis of potential 

15 environmental impacts from building, operating, and maintaining the new nuclear power 

16 generating facilities and transmission-lines. The descriptions also support the evaluation of 

17 mitigation activities to avoid, reduce, minimize, rectify, or compensate for potential impacts. 

18 Descriptions are also provided to aid in comparing the alternative sites to the LNP site in 

19 Chapter 9. Also included are descriptions of proposed monitoring programs for terrestrial and 

20 aquatic environments. 

21 2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology 

22 This section describes terrestrial ecological resources, including wetlands, and discusses 

23 species composition and other structural and functional attributes of biotic assemblages that 

24 could be affected by actions proposed on the LNP site and the corridors for associated offsite 

25 facilities. The proposed offsite facilities include: 

26 • transmission-lines and associated infrastructure (e.g., substations and access roads) 

27 • barge slip on CFBC 

28 • heavy-haul road 

29 • makeup and blowdown pipelines 

30 • CWIS on the CFBC 

31 • groundwater wellfield to supply general plant operations 

32 • various access roads to the proposed LNP site, transmission lines, and barge slip. 

33 Portions of the transmission lines, pipelines, and heavy-haul road designed to be built within the 

34 3105-ac LNP site are considered part of the site work and not part of the offsite facility work. All 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-41 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 work designed as offsite facility work lies outside of the perimeter of the 3105-ac LNP site. This 

2 section also identifies “important” terrestrial resources, as defined in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), 

3 including (but not limited to) threatened and endangered species and commercially or 

4 recreationally valuable species that might be affected by the proposed action. 

5 2.4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity 

6 The 3105-ac LNP site is located in the Gulf Coastal Flatwoods ecoregion of Florida (EPA 2007). 

7 The Gulf of Mexico is located about 7.9 mi west of the LNP site and Lake Rousseau lies about 

8 3 mi to the south. Goethe State Forest borders the northeast part of the LNP site. A pine 

9 plantation is just east and south of the LNP site, and an exotic animal hunting ranch and US-19 

10 border the western edge of the LNP site. 

11 The LNP site and vicinity are characterized by broad, low-elevation flatlands interspersed with 

12 shallow depressions. Pine flatwoods were the predominant vegetative community prior to the 

13 mid-20th century, but most have been converted from natural longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and 

14 slash pine (P. elliottii) communities to managed forests stocked with slash pine and loblolly pine 

15 (P. taeda). The LNP site is undeveloped except for a network of limerock roads. Prior to being 

16 acquired by PEF, the site was in active forest management and leased for hunting and target 

17 practice. Vegetation, soils, and localized drainage patterns had been extensively altered 

18 through forest plantation activities including clearing, logging, road development, ditching, 

19 grading, bedding, and replanting. Localized vegetation disturbance has occurred as PEF has 

20 performed various site investigations including geotechnical boring, installation of groundwater 

21 wells, and placement of a meteorological tower on the LNP site. 

22 Existing Cover Types (Habitats) 

23 The LNP site supports a range of cleared and forested cover types that have been influenced by 

24 intensive forest management. Existing cover types have been identified and mapped using the 

25 Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). The distribution of 

26 upland and wetland cover types is described below based on maps prepared by the SWFWMD 

27 and field surveys conducted by CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill), a subcontractor 

28 to PEF, between September 2006 and November 2008. SWFWMD FLUCFCS mapping for the 

29 LNP site and vicinity is presented in Figure 2-15 to illustrate the general distribution of cover 

30 types in the area. 

31 The area of each cover type found on the LNP site is presented in Table 2-5. A brief description 

32 of each cover type, summarized from the ER (PEF 2009a), PEF responses to Requests for 

33 Additional Information (RAIs) (PEF 2009b), and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT 

34 1999) is provided below in order of decreasing areal extent on the LNP site. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-42 August 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-15. Cover Types from the LNP Site and Vicinity
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-43 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-5. Area of Cover Types at the LNP Site

Cover Type 

FLUCFCS 

Code(a)

Approximate 

Acres 

Approximate 

Percent of LNP 

Site 

Coniferous plantations 441 962.9(b) 31.0 

Wet planted pine 629 812.7 26.1 

Cypress swamp 621 402.6 12.9 

Mixed wetland hardwoods 617 317.6 10.2 

Treeless hydric savanna 646 274.4 8.8 

Wetland forested mixed 630 156.4 5.0 

Other open lands (rural) 260 106.0 3.4 

Freshwater marshes 641 23.5 0.8 

Hardwood conifer mixed 434 16.0 0.5 

Wet prairie 643 14.3 0.5 

Upland coniferous forest 410 11.0 0.4 

Utilities 830 4.0 0.1 

Pine flatwoods 411 3.0 0.1 

Shrub and brushland 320 0.6 <0.1 

Total cover types 3105.0 

Sources: PEF 2009a, b. 

(a) FLUCFCS = Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FDOT 1999). 

(b) Derived by subtracting area for wet planted pine (as determined from wetland delineation) from original ER 

estimate for tree plantations. Area of tree plantation was reduced by 4.4 ac to account for boundary 

adjustments. 

2 Coniferous Plantations (FLUCFCS 441)

3 Coniferous plantations encompass approximately 962.9 ac or 31.0 percent of the LNP site. 

4 They occupy most uplands on the site. Most coniferous plantations are monospecific, even5 aged stands planted in slash pine, and to a lesser extent loblolly pine. They have been 

6 managed on a short harvest rotation of less than 30 years. A range of stand conditions are 

7 found on the LNP site, from recently planted seedlings to early-maturity pine stands. After past 

8 clear-cut harvests the land has been graded, bedded, and replanted with pine seedlings. The 

9 understory and groundcover are generally sparse and include gallberry (Ilex glabra), saw 

10 palmetto (Serenoa repens), sand blackberry (Rubus cuneifolis), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), 

11 wiregrass (Aristida stricta var beyrichiana), broomsedge bluestem (Andropogon virginicus), 

12 marsh bristlegrass (Setaria geniculata), blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muhlenbergianium), 

13 clustered bush mint (Hyptis alata), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and greenbrier (Smilax spp.) 

14 (PEF 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-44 August 2010 

1 Wet Planted Pine (FLUCFCS 629)

2 Coniferous plantations in areas subject to ground saturation or inundation encompass 

3 approximately 812.7 ac or 26.1 percent of the LNP site. They tend to occur in drier wetlands 

4 where natural wetland vegetation has been cleared and replaced by planted rows of commercial 

5 pine seedlings, mostly as slash pine, that can tolerate limited ground saturation or inundation. 

6 These areas tend to be shown on FLUCFCS maps using the same numerical code (441) as 

7 upland pine plantations. As for coniferous plantations in drier parts of the site, areas of wet 

8 planted pine comprise even-aged stands of planted pine that have been managed on a short 

9 harvest rotation of less than 30 years. Stand conditions range from recently planted seedlings 

10 to early-maturity pine stands. After past clear-cut harvests, the land has been graded, bedded, 

11 and replanted with pine seedlings. Planted slash pine is predominant in the tree canopy. Also 

12 present is a sparse groundcover of moisture-tolerant herbaceous species such as blue 

13 maidencane, broomsedge bluestem, Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), and yellow14 eyed grass (Xyris spp.), along with scattered shrubs such as fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) and 

15 gallberry (PEF 2009b). 

16 Cypress (FLUCFCS 621)

17 Cypress swamp encompasses 402.6 ac or 12.9 percent of the LNP site. Cypress swamps 

18 occur as isolated, circular depressions or occupy shallow sloughs or drainage ways linked 

19 during seasonally wet periods. Tree canopy is dominated by pond cypress (Taxodium 

20 ascendens). Other woody species include slash pine, red bay (Persea borbonia), swamp tupelo 

21 (Nyssa sylvatica var biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), common buttonbush (Cephalanthus 

22 occidentalis), fetterbush, Virginia willow (Itea virginica), and swamp doghobble (Leucothoe 

23 racemosa) (PEF 2009a). Groundcover is generally sparse due to seasonally high water, but 

24 includes lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), blue maidencane, and ferns that frequently grow in 

25 elevated tussocks, such as royal fern (Osmunda regalis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda 

26 cinnamomea), and Virginia chain fern (PEF 2009a). 

27 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods (FLUCFCS 617)

28 Forests in wetland settings dominated by a mixture of hardwood tree species encompass 

29 approximately 317.6 ac or 10.2 percent of the LNP site. Dominant canopy species include red 

30 bay, sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), red maple, dahoon (Ilex cassine), and pond cypress. 

31 Common shrubs include common button bush, fetterbush and wax myrtle (PEF 2009b). This 

32 cover type occurs mostly in cutover cypress swamps where fire suppression has allowed 

33 hardwood species to proliferate. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-45 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Treeless Hydric Savanna (FLUCFCS 646)

2 Approximately 274.4 ac (or 8.8 percent) of the LNP site have been identified by PEF as treeless 

3 hydric savanna. These areas are clear-cut wetland forest stands that have not yet been 

4 replanted (or allowed to naturally regenerate tree cover) (PEF 2009g). They are largely 

5 vegetated by wet prairie species such as broomsedge bluestem, pipeworts (Eriocaulon spp.), 

6 yellow-eyed grass, and wiregrass (PEF 2009b). Shrubs such as fetterbush and wax myrtle are 

7 also present. 

8 Wetland Forested Mixed (FLUCFCS 630)

9 Approximately 156.4 ac (or 5.0 percent) of the LNP site have been identified by PEF as wetland 

10 forested mixed. This cover type includes mixed wetland forest communities in which neither 

11 hardwoods nor conifers dominate the tree canopy (FDOT 1999). On the LNP site, this cover 

12 type frequently occurs as inclusions in, or on the periphery of, cypress swamps. Tree canopy 

13 cover is similar to that in cypress swamps (FLUCFCS 621) but with a higher prevalence of 

14 hardwood trees such as redbay, sweetbay, tupelo (Nyssa sp.), red maple, and dahoon (PEF 

15 2009a). This cover type is distinguished from mixed wetland hardwoods (FLUCFCS 617) by a 

16 higher conifer levels (especially cypress) in the tree canopy. 

17 Other Open Lands – Rural (FLUCFCS 260)

18 Other open lands – rural cover type (106 ac or 3.4 percent of the LNP site) – are represented on 

19 the site by recently clear-cut upland areas that have been heavily scarified. They contain 

20 scattered piles of woody debris and a network of logging roads. Common plants in these areas 

21 include broomsedge bluestem, Carolina redroot (Lachnanthes caroliana), dog fennel 

22 (Eupatorium capillifolium), annual ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), red top panicum 

23 (Panicum rigidulum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and slash pine saplings (PEF 2009a). 

24 Freshwater Marshes (FLUCFCS 641)

25 Freshwater marshes, present on about 23.5 ac or 0.8 percent of the LNP site, are dominated 

26 mostly by grasses, sedges, and forbs tolerant of wet conditions. Most freshwater marshes on 

27 the LNP site appear to be successional habitats that developed after cypress swamps or pine 

28 flatwoods were logged. These areas are generally wetter than treeless hydric savannah 

29 (FLUCFCS 646) or wet prairie (FLUCFCS 643). The vegetative composition is dependent upon 

30 hydroperiod, the community present prior to disturbance, and time since disturbance. 

31 Freshwater marshes may occur as small shallow depressions within planted pine stands, in 

32 clearings, and in borrow areas for road development and bedding. Common species include 

33 maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), blue maidencane, bushy bluestem (Andropogon 

34 glomeratus), sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri), Jamaica swamp sawgrass (Cladium 

35 jamaicense), yellow-eyed grass, Carolina redroot, bogbutton (Lachnocaulon spp.), spikerush 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-46 August 2010 

1 (Eleocharis spp.), creeping primrose-willow (Ludwigia repens), sedges (Carex spp.), and 

2 beaksedge (Rhynchospora spp.), with groundsel bush (Baccharis halimifolia), St. Andrew’s 

3 Cross (Hypericum hypericoides), and common buttonbush (PEF 2009a). Some depressional 

4 marshes on the LNP site exist as shallow basins containing concentric bands of herbaceous 

5 and shrub vegetation. The central portion of these areas is vegetated by emergent species 

6 such as pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata), firelag (Thalia geniculata), and broadleaf cattail 

7 (Typha latifolia) (PEF 2009a). Shrubs such as common buttonbush, St. Peterswort (Hypericum 

8 crux-andreae), St. Andrew’s cross, and wax myrtle surround these depressional wetlands. 

9 Some logged cypress stands may include scattered pond cypress trees left as a seed source for 

10 stand regeneration. 

11 Hardwood Conifer Mixed (FLUCFCS 434)

12 The hardwood conifer mixed cover type describes upland forests where conifers and hardwoods 

13 share dominance in the tree canopy. Distribution of this cover type on the site is limited to a 

14 small area (16 ac or 0.5 percent of the LNP site) in the northwestern corner just east of 

15 US-19/US-98. Common species include laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweet gum 

16 (Liquidambar styraciflua), slash pine, loblolly pine, live oak (Quercus virginiana), and cabbage 

17 palm (Sabal palmetto) (PEF 2009a). 

18 Wet Prairie (FLUCFCS 643)

19 Wet prairies, about 14.3 ac, make up about 0.5 percent of the LNP site acreage. Wet prairie is 

20 characterized as an infrequently inundated treeless plain with a sparse-to-dense groundcover of 

21 grasses and herbs. It is usually distinguished from freshwater marshes by having less water 

22 and shorter herbage (FDOT 1999). Common vegetation includes bushy bluestem , soft rush 

23 (Juncus effusus), dog fennel, spadeleaf (Centella asiatica), torpedo grass (Panicum repens), 

24 meadow beauty (Rhexia spp.), St. John’s-wort (Hypericum sp.), camphorweed (Pluchea spp.), 

25 bog button, maidencane, and marshpennywort (Hydrocotyle spp.) (Golder Associates 2008). 

26 Upland Coniferous Forest (FLUCFCS 410)

27 The upland coniferous forest cover type is defined as a natural forest stand in which at least 

28 66 percent of the canopy is dominated by conifers and that does not meet the criteria for a more 

29 detailed classification. It is used in this document to identify naturally vegetated upland areas 

30 dominated by pines that do not meet the narrower definition of pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS 411). 

31 This cover type, making up about 11 ac or 0.4 percent of the LNP site, is represented by small 

32 isolated patches of natural pine forest that do not meet the definition for pine flatwoods 

33 (FLUCFCS 411). Nearly all uplands on the LNP site capable of supporting natural pine forest 

34 have either been converted to planted pine forest (i.e., coniferous plantations) or recently 

35 harvested (PEF 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-47 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Utilities (FLUCFCS 830)

2 The utilities cover type (4.0 ac or 0.1 percent of the LNP site) is represented by a natural-gas 

3 pipeline corridor in the northwest corner of the site, roughly parallel to US-19/US-98. Vegetation 

4 within the corridor is maintained in a herbaceous-to-shrub condition. Early successional species 

5 predominate, such as dog fennel, bluestem (Andropogon spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), 

6 bracken fern, slender flat-top goldenrod (Euthamia caroliniana), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), 

7 groundsel bush, and blackberry (Rubus spp.) (PEF 2009a). Wetter areas support hydrophytic 

8 vegetation, including broadleaf cattail, pickerelweed, maidencane, and blue maidencane. 

9 Pine Flatwoods (FLUCFCS 411)

10 Although once the most common upland vegetation in the area, few natural pine flatwoods 

11 remain on the LNP site, most having been harvested and replaced with planted pine stands 

12 (i.e., coniferous plantations). One small remnant area of pine flatwoods, representing about 

13 3 ac or 0.1 percent of the LNP site, is present along the northern border of the site. Pine 

14 flatwoods are dominated by slash or longleaf pine with an understory of saw palmetto, wax 

15 myrtle, and gallberry. Spacing in the pine tree canopy is generally sparser and more random 

16 than in areas identified as coniferous plantations (FLUCFCS 441). 

17 Shrub and Brushland (FLUCFCS 320)

18 The shrub and brushland cover type composes about 0.6 ac (less than 0.1 percent) of the LNP 

19 site acreage. Shrub and brushland is mostly dominated by saw palmetto intermixed with a wide 

20 variety of other woody scrub plant species, as well as various types of short herbs and grasses 

21 (FDOT 1999). The tree canopy component is typically sparse or absent. 

22 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States 

23 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires permits for discharges into “waters of the United 

24 States.” The term “waters of the United States” is defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and incorporates 

25 both wetlands and other surface-water features. A discussion of surface waters is presented in 

26 Section 2.4.2. Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by 

27 groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

28 circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

29 conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas” (33 CFR 

30 328.3(b)). Proposed projects having wetland impacts in Florida require approvals from the 

31 USACE and the FDEP. The State wetland regulatory program for peninsular Florida (within 

32 which the LNP site falls) is implemented jointly by the FDEP and four water-management 

33 districts. The LNP site falls within the geographic territory of the SWFWMD. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-48 August 2010 

1 PEF performed a wetland delineation for the LNP site following the 1987 Corps of Engineers 

2 Wetland Delineation Manual and State of Florida Unified Wetland Delineation Methodology (Fla. 

3 Admin. Code 62-340). The USACE requires the presence of three parameters in support of a 

4 wetlands determination: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The 

5 FDEP uses similar criteria tailored to conditions commonly occurring in Florida. PEF is awaiting 

6 final approval of the delineation from the FDEP and USACE. 

7 Most wetlands on the LNP site have been altered by years of intensive forest management that 

8 has included conversion of native habitats to planted pine plantations, extensive soil 

9 disturbance, and modifications of localized drainage patterns. The distribution of wetlands as 

10 delineated for the LNP site is presented in Figure 2-16 and the approximate acreage of 

11 wetlands by FLUCFCS cover types is provided in Table 2-6. Wetlands occur over about two12 thirds (2001.5 ac) of the LNP site. The most common wetland community present is wet 

13 planted pine (FLUCFCS 629), which constitutes about 40.6 percent of onsite wetlands. These 

14 tree plantations mostly occupy wetter portions of former pine flatwoods and drier portions of 

15 former wetlands that have been substantially altered for commercial pine production. Forested 

16 wetland swamps (cypress – FLUCFCS 621; mixed wetland hardwoods – FLUCFCS 617, and 

17 wetland forest mixed – FLUCFCS 630) constitute another 43.8 percent of onsite wetlands. 

18 Forested swamps have been logged to varying degrees and consist of relatively intact forest 

19 stands interspersed with remnant stands made up of scattered trees. Treeless hydric savanna 

20 (FLUCFCS 646), representing about 13.7 percent of onsite wetlands, constitutes recently 

21 logged wetland forest stands not yet replanted. Freshwater marshes and wet prairie occupy 

22 less than 2 percent of the LNP site. These wetland communities are described above under 

23 Existing Cover Types (Habitats). 

24 Wildlife 

25 Wildlife populations and habitat on the LNP site have been altered by years of intensive forest 

26 management that has converted native forests to planted pine plantations. These actions have 

27 produced artificially simplified habitats lacking large mature trees, well-developed understory, 

28 and other habitat features (e.g., large snags, large woody debris) needed to support a wide 

29 assemblage of native wildlife. Nevertheless, the interspersion of wetlands, hardwoods, 

30 managed pine stands and recent clear-cuts provides habitat for many common wildlife species, 

31 especially those adapted to early successional stages and frequent landscape disturbance. 

32 Wildlife that require mature forest conditions and large blocks of unfragmented habitat are 

33 expected to be uncommon. While most mammals, amphibians, and reptiles present are year34 round residents, many of the bird species represent individuals that may seasonally migrate to 

35 or through this region, including neotropical migrants. A branch of the eastern Atlantic Flyway 

36 crosses the region (FWS 2010a; Birdnature.com 2009). 

37 PEF completed pedestrian surveys on the LNP site between October 2006 and November 2008 

38 to characterize onsite habitats and document the presence of wildlife (PEF 2009h). Direct 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-49 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 2-16. Delineated Wetlands of the LNP Site (PEF 2009l)
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-50 August 2010 

1 Table 2-6. Area of Wetland Cover Types at the LNP Site 

Wetland Cover Type 

FLUCFCS 

Code(a)

Approximate 

Acres 

Approximate 

Percent of LNP 

Wetlands 

Wet planted pine 629 812.7 40.6 

Cypress 621 402.6 20.1 

Mixed wetland hardwoods 617 317.6 15.9 

Treeless hydric savanna 646 274.4 13.7 

Wetland forested mixed 630 156.4 7.8 

Freshwater marshes 641 23.5 1.2 

Wet prairie 643 14.3 0.7 

Total wetlands 2001.5 100 

Source: PEF 2009b. 

(a) FLUCFCS = Florida Land Use, Covers and Forms Classification System. 

2 observations of wildlife, as well as wildlife signs (e.g., scat, tracks), were recorded (PEF 2009a). 

3 Tables listing each wildlife species detected are provided in Appendix K. Wildlife species 

4 reported by the surveys are representative of those commonly found in west-central Florida. 

5 Wildlife species observed on the LNP site or expected to occur there based upon the presence 

6 of suitable habitat include 18 mammals, 72 birds, 25 reptiles, and 15 amphibians (PEF 2009h). 

7 Common mammals observed on the site include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 

8 coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), feral hog (Sus scrofa), nine-banded armadillo 

9 (Dasypus novemeinctus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and 

10 eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). Numerous small mammals such as the cotton mouse 

11 (Peromyscus gossypinus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), and eastern wood rat 

12 (Neotoma floridana) are expected onsite as well. 

13 Birds observed on the site include blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis 

14 cardinalis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), fish crow 

15 (Corvus ossifragus) and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), among many others. North 

16 American wood ducks (Aix sponsa) use the hardwood and cypress swamps, as do barred owls 

17 (Strix varia), red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), American woodcocks (Scolopax minor), 

18 and red-bellied woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus). Although several species of wading birds 

19 have been observed foraging in onsite wetlands, such as the great egret (Ardea alba) and white 

20 ibis (Eudocimus albus), no nesting colonies have been observed or are expected because of 

21 the absence of open water habitats preferred by these species. Numerous migratory bird 

22 species were observed on the LNP site, including American robin (Turdus migratorius), yellow23 rumped warbler (Dedroica coronata), and cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), among others. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-51 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Reptiles and amphibians observed on the LNP site include the black racer (Coluber constrictor), 

2 common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), gopher 

3 tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Florida cooter (Pseudemys floridana floridana), southern 

4 leopard frog (Rana utricularia), and ground skink (Scincella lateralis). Depressional marshes on 

5 the LNP site provide breeding and foraging habitat for the southeastern five-lined skink 

6 (Eumeces inexpectatus), oak toad (Bufo quercicus), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), 

7 southern chorus frog (Pseudacris nigrita), and squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella). 

8 Invasive Species 

9 Invasive species are defined in Executive Order 13112 as alien species whose introduction 

10 does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. They have 

11 the potential to alter native communities by displacing native species, changing plant community 

12 structure, or altering ecological functions. Invasive plants are generally not a problem on the 

13 LNP site at this time (PEF 2009a). However, small widely scattered patches of cogon grass 

14 (Imperata cylindrica), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum 

15 sinense) were observed, all of which can become highly invasive in disturbed environments 

16 where they can out-compete native vegetation. 

17 Feral hogs, a non-native species descended from domestic farm animals, represent a major 

18 invasive mammal species on the LNP site. Feral hogs damage native vegetation by rooting and 

19 wallowing; eating reptiles, amphibians, and the eggs of ground-nesting birds; competing with 

20 native wildlife such as white-tailed deer and wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) for acorns and 

21 other foods; and harboring diseases and parasites that may spread to native wildlife and people 

22 (Giuliano and Tanner 2005). Field inventories conducted by PEF from 2006 to 2008 

23 documented the presence of a large population of feral hogs on the LNP site (PEF 2009a). 

24 Abundant damage to wetland communities was evident from rooting by feral hogs. PEF also 

25 observed the nine-banded armadillo, another non-native nuisance mammal, on the LNP site 

26 (PEF 2009a). Armadillos also may disrupt the soil and litter layers and prey upon smaller native 

27 animals. 

28 2.4.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Associated Offsite Facilities 

29 This section describes terrestrial resources known to occur on or in the vicinity of the associated 

30 offsite facilities, including the transmission lines required to integrate the electrical power 

31 generated at the LNP into the Florida electrical grid system. The Florida Power Plant Siting Act 

32 (PPSA) provides for the certification of “corridors” within which linear facilities associated with an 

33 electrical power plant, such as proposed transmission lines, must be located. Once the final 

34 rights-of-way have been approved by the State and acquired, the boundaries of the corridors 

35 are revised to those of the acquired rights-of-way. As indicated in Section 2.2.2, the proposed 

36 new transmission lines would be built within a total of approximately 180 miles of corridor, 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-52 August 2010 

1 including approximately 82 mi of corridor for new 500-kV transmission lines and approximately 

2 98 miles of corridor new 230-kV transmission lines. 

3 Pursuant to the PPSA, PEF (2009a, 2008a) has identified corridors for the linear facilities 

4 associated with the LNP. The heavy-haul road, makeup-water pipeline, and a portion of the 

5 blowdown pipeline would be built in a new common 0.25-mi-wide by 2-mi-long corridor that 

6 would extend from the southern boundary of the LNP site to the CFBC (Figure 2-3). The barge 

7 slip and CWIS would be built within this corridor as well. The remaining portion of the blowdown 

8 pipeline would be built in a new 0.25-mi-wide by 11-mi-long corridor that would extend from the 

9 CFBC to the CREC (Figure 3-7). PEF petitioned the State of Florida on April 29, 2010 for a 

10 modification to the currently certified corridor for the heavy-haul road, cooling-water makeup 

11 pipelines and the blowdown pipelines to be constructed between the LNP site and the CREC 

12 (Figure 3-7) (PEF 2009j). The purpose of the modification is to provide more flexibility in 

13 minimizing impacts on wetlands and other natural resources, especially salt marsh habitat, 

14 when siting these facilities, to reduce the use of State-owned lands along the CFBC, and to 

15 minimize disruption of recreational activities along the CFBC. Final right-of-way widths for each 

16 facility to be located within the corridor would remain the same. 

17 A number of new transmission lines are proposed to connect the LNP switchyard to the PEF 

18 electrical grid (Figure 2-5). The proposed corridors within which the new lines would be built 

19 primarily lie within or adjacent to existing PEF high-voltage transmission lines. The 

20 transmission-line corridors range from 375 ft to 59 mi in length, and from approximately 300 ft to 

21 1 mi wide (PEF 2008a; Golder Associates 2008). The variable corridor width is to allow for 

22 flexibility when determining the final right-of-way and for entering or exiting substations. 

23 Corridors collocated with existing PEF transmission-line corridors are generally narrower 

24 because the route ultimately selected is more certain. In total, about 180 mi of new 

25 transmission lines routed within about 148 mi of corridor (multiple lines occur in some corridors) 

26 would need to be built to incorporate the power generated by the proposed LNP into the Florida 

27 electrical grid system (Golder Associates 2008; CH2M Hill 2009c). 

28 Four new 500-kV transmission lines would extend from the southern boundary of the LNP site to 

29 the first substation for each line. Proceeding south from the LNP site, all four transmission lines 

30 would be collocated in a 7-mi-long by 1-mi-wide common corridor. Two of these transmission 

31 lines would then connect to the proposed Citrus substation; one would connect to the proposed 

32 Central Florida South substation; and the other would connect to the CREC 500-kV switchyard 

33 (PEF 2008a, 2009a; Golder Associates 2008). 

34 The proposed Citrus substation would be built in the common corridor; hence two of the 

35 transmission lines would terminate in the common corridor. Most of the 500-kV transmission36 line segment extending east from the common corridor to the Central Florida South substation 

37 would be collocated with existing PEF transmission lines in a 1000-ft wide corridor. However, a 

38 new 1-mi wide corridor would be required for the final 13.5 mi. The 500-kV transmission line 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-53 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 segment extending from the common corridor to the CREC switchyard would follow existing 

2 PEF transmission lines within a 1-mi-wide corridor (PEF 2008a, 2009a; Golder Associates 

3 2008). 

4 Additional transmission lines extending beyond the first substations would also be required to 

5 link the LNP to the electrical grid. Two 230-kV lines would extend from the proposed Citrus 

6 substation to the existing Crystal River East substation; a 230-kV line would extend from the 

7 CREC switchyard to the Brookridge substation; another 230-kV line would extend from the 

8 Brookridge substation to the Brooksville West substation; and the last 230-kV line would extend 

9 from the existing Kathleen substation to the Griffin substation and then beyond to the Lake 

10 Tarpon substation (PEF 2008a, 2009a; Golder Associates 2008). Two additional 69-kV lines 

11 would be required to support the LNP site and would connect to existing 69-kV lines from the 

12 western and the southern boundaries of the LNP site (PEF 2008a, 2009a; Golder Associates 

13 2008). 

14 Corridor segments required beyond the first substations include 38 mi mostly collocated with 

15 existing PEF transmission lines from the CREC switchyard to the existing Brookridge substation 

16 (corridor width of 1000 ft widens to 1 mi at endpoints). Another 3 mi of corridor (0.5 mi wide) 

17 would be collocated with existing PEF transmission line from the Brookridge substation to the 

18 Brooksville West substation. The transmission line extending 50 mi from the Kathleen 

19 substation to the Griffin substation, and west to the Lake Tarpon substation, would be collocated 

20 with existing PEF transmission lines in a corridor ranging from 300 to 1000 ft wide. Although a 

21 specific location for the proposed Citrus substation has not yet been finalized, connection to the 

22 existing Crystal River East substation would require new transmission lines sited within a 

23 corridor less than 2.7 mi long and 1 mi wide (PEF 2008a , 2009a; Golder Associates 2008). 

24 PEF (2009a) has proposed to site a wellfield immediately south of the LNP site that would be 

25 used to supply general plant operations including service-water cooling, potable-water supply, 

26 raw water to the demineralizer, fire protection, and media filter backwash (see Figure 2-12). 

27 PEF estimates that plant operations would require an average total withdrawal of 1.58 Mgd of 

28 groundwater from the underlying Floridan aquifer. Much of this wellfield lies within the 1-mi29 wide common corridor extending south of the LNP site, within which the four 500-kV 

30 transmission lines would be sited. 

31 Existing Cover Types and Wetlands 

32 Existing cover types present within corridors supporting associated offsite facilities were 

33 identified using FLUCFCS cover mapping obtained from the SWFWMD and the St. John’s 

34 Water Management District (PEF 2009i). Pedestrian and vehicular field reconnaissance of 

35 accessible areas was conducted to verify and update the distribution of cover types, including 

36 wetlands (PEF 2008a, 2009h; Golder Associates 2008). After the final rights-of-way are 

37 selected and acquired, PEF will complete more detailed surveys pursuant to the PPSA to verify 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-54 August 2010 

1 all cover types and delineate wetland boundaries (PEF 2009h). PEF expects to acquire rights2 of-way as necessary to provide a typical width of 220 ft for the proposed 500-kV transmission 

3 lines and a typical width of 100 ft for the proposed 230-kV transmission lines (Golder Associates 

4 2008). 

5 Many areas within the corridors have been altered by prior land uses, such as residential 

6 development, forest management, agriculture, and utility development. Nevertheless, various 

7 upland, wetland, and aquatic habitats are present. The area of FLUCFCS cover types found 

8 within the corridors is summarized in Table 2-7, grouped by corridors that include all associated 

9 facilities that lie between the LNP site and the transmission-line first substations, and corridors 

10 inclusive of associated facilities that lie beyond the first substations. Refer to the FDOT (1999) 

11 FLUCFCS handbook for descriptions of these cover types. 

12 Corridors up to the first substation would include the following associated facilities: barge slip; 

13 barge slip access road; heavy-haul road; makeup-water pipeline; CWIS; blowdown pipeline; 

14 groundwater wells to supply general plant operations; Citrus substation; Central Florida South 

15 substation; and the four 500-kV transmission lines connecting the LNP to the proposed Citrus 

16 substation, the proposed Central Florida South substation, and the existing CREC 500-kV 

17 switchyard. The vegetation cover types within corridors up to the first substation reflect the past 

18 level of human-induced change that has occurred across the landscape. Much of the historical 

19 vegetation on and around the corridors has been cleared or altered for land uses such as 

20 agriculture, residential development, forest management, utilities, and for roads and highways 

21 (see Table 2-7). The predominant upland cover types present include disturbed habitats such 

22 as cropland and pastureland, utilities, open land, low-density residential land and coniferous 

23 plantations. However, substantial blocks of relatively undisturbed mixed hardwood-conifer 

24 forest (FLUCFCS 434) are present, along with smaller stands of longleaf pine-xeric oak forest 

25 (FLUCFCS 412), pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS 411), and upland coniferous forest 

26 (FLUCFCS 410). 

27 Almost 2800 ac of forested and herbaceous wetlands are present within corridors up to the first 

28 substation based upon the FLUCFCS cover types listed in Table 2-7. Of these, freshwater 

29 marshes (FLUCFCS 641), streams and lake swamps (FLUCFCS 615), and mixed forested 

30 wetlands (FLUCFCS 630) are the most prevalent. Wetlands range in quality from those 

31 exhibiting well-developed floristic and structural characteristics that provide valuable wildlife 

32 habitat, such as wetlands adjacent to the Withlacoochee River and Lake Rousseau, to 

33 freshwater marshes located within transmission-line corridors and pastures that have reduced 

34 functionality due to past and ongoing disturbance (e.g., tree canopy removal, drainage 

35 alteration, livestock grazing) (PEF 2008a). Other wetland habitats noted include (but are not 

36 limited to) cypress swamps (FLUCFCS 621), wet prairies (FLUCFCS 643), saltwater marshes 

37 (FLUCFCS 642), and intermittent ponds (FLUCFCS 653). Aquatic habitats present within 

38 corridors up to the first substation include the CFBC, the Withlacoochee River, small unnamed 

39 tributaries, reservoirs, small lakes, and bays/estuaries (as listed in Table 2-7). 

40 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-55 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Corridors beyond the first substation include the five 230-kV lines and the two 69-kV lines. The 

2 cover types present within these corridors also reflect a high level of past human-induced 

3 change, with much of the historical vegetation on and around the corridors cleared or altered for 

4 residential development, utilities, and agriculture (see Table 2-7). Upland cover types present in 

5 the corridors include disturbed habitats such as low-density residential, utilities, open land, and 

6 cropland and pastureland, as well as relatively undisturbed longleaf pine-xeric oak forest 

7 (FLUCFCS 412). Other upland cover types noted include (but are not limited to) small areas of 

8 mixed hardwood conifer forest (FLUCFCS 434), coniferous plantations (FLUCFCS 441), shrub 

9 and brushlands (FLUCFCS 320), and pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS 411). Predominant wetland 

10 cover types are represented by freshwater marsh (FLUCFCS 641), cypress swamps (FLUCFCS 

11 621), stream and lake swamps (FLUCFCS 615), and mixed wetland forest (FLUCFCS 630) 

12 (Table 2-7). Freshwater marshes located within transmission-line corridors and pastures have 

13 reduced functionality due to past and ongoing disturbance (e.g., tree canopy removal, drainage 

14 alteration, livestock grazing) (PEF 2008a). 

15 Wildlife 

16 A wide variety of wildlife common to west-central Florida is expected to occur within corridors 

17 supporting associated offsite facilities. Wildlife diversity is expected to be greatest within 

18 corridors that support an interspersion of native upland, wetland, and aquatic habitats; and less 

19 in disturbed or developed lands. Habitats identified within corridors expected to provide higher 

20 value habitat for wildlife include mixed hardwood-conifer forest (FLUCFCS 434), longleaf pine21 xeric oak forest (FLUCFCS 412), streams and lake swamps (FLUCFCS 615), mixed forested 

22 wetlands (FLUCFCS 630), salt marsh (FLUCFCS 642), wet prairie (FLUCFCS 643), pine 

23 flatwoods (FLUCFCS 411), cypress swamps (FLUCFCS 621), and upland conifer forests 

24 (FLUCFCS 410). Lower-quality wildlife habitat is represented by areas cleared for utilities, 

25 roads, agriculture and residential development; disturbed habitats such as pastureland, open 

26 land, other open land (rural) and coniferous plantations abundant along some corridors; and 

27 disturbed freshwater marshes located in utility corridors and on adjacent pastureland. 

28 Limited surveys for wildlife have occurred within corridors supporting associated offsite facilities. 

29 Pedestrian and vehicular field reconnaissance of accessible areas was conducted to verify and 

30 update the distribution of cover types (PEF 2008a, 2009a, h; Golder Associates 2008). 

31 Information about wildlife and wildlife habitat was also collected during the surveys, with most 

32 effort directed toward important species. The corridor segment between the LNP site and the 

33 CFBC received the most investigation because much of this property has been purchased by 

34 PEF. The extent-of-ground reconnaissance was much lower for the long corridor segments that 

35 would support only transmission lines. 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-56 August 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-7. FLUCFCS Cover Types Within the Associated Facilities Corridors 1 FLUCFCS Cover Type FLUCFCS Code(a) Corridors up to the First Transmission-Line Substation(b) Corridors Beyond the First Transmission-Line Substation(c) Acres Percent Acres Percent Urban and Built-Up Residential, low density 110 1592 6.5 2301 26.5 Rural residential 118 4 >0.1 0 0 

Residential, medium density 120 24 0.1 388 4.5 

Residential high density 130 56 0.2 137 1.6 

Commercial and services 140 184 0.7 123 1.4 Industrial 150 103 0.4 35 0.4 

Other light industrial 155 4 >0.1 0 0 

Extractive 160 215 0.9 41 0.5 Holding ponds 166 1 >0.1 0 0 

Institutional 170 28 0.1 16 0.2 

Recreational 180 59 0.2 19 0.2 

Golf courses 182 0 30 0.3 

Open land 190 2144 8.7 647 7.4 

Subtotal – Urban and Built-Up 4412 18.0 3737 43.0 

Agricultural Cropland and pastureland 210 6514 26.5 754 8.7 Row crops 214 235 1.0 18 0.2 

Field crops 215 6 >0.1 0 0 

Tree crops 220 0 0 74 0.8 

Feeding operations 230 0 0 14 0.2 

Nurseries and vineyards 240 3.0 >0.1 17 0.2 

Specialty farms 250 23 0.1 8 0.1 

Other open lands – rural 260 1074 4.4 109 1.3 

Total – Agricultural 7854 32.0 993 11.4 
August 2010 2-57 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment Table 2-7. (contd) FLUCFCS Cover Type FLUCFCS Code(a) Corridors up to the First Transmission-Line Substation Corridors Beyond the First Transmission-Line Substation(c) Acres Percent Acres Percent Upland Nonforested Herbaceous upland nonforested 310 16 0.1 0 0 Shrub and brushland 320 254 1.0 147 1.7 Mixed rangeland 330 72 0.2 4 >0.1 Subtotal – Upland Nonforested 342 1.4 151 1.7 Upland Forested Upland coniferous forest 410 201 0.8 44 0.5 Pine flatwoods 411 202 0.8 75 0.9 Longleaf pine-xeric oak 412 828 3.4 1392 16.0 Upland hardwood forest 420 62 0.3 0 0 Hardwood-conifer mixed 434 2846(e) 11,6 255 2.9 Coniferous plantations(d) 441 1907 7.8 172 2.0 Subtotal – Upland Forested 6045 24.6 1938 22.3 Water Streams and waterways 510 244 1.0 4 >0.1 Lakes 520 57 0.2 9 0.1 Reservoirs 530 68 0.3 60 0.7 Bays and estuaries 540 3 >0.1 0 0 Subtotal – Water 334 1.4 73 0.8 Wetlands Stream and lake swamps (bottomland) 615 605 2.5 104 1.2 Mixed wetland hardwoods 617 33 0.1 0 0 Wetland coniferous forest 620 0 0 6 0.1 Cypress 621 194 0.8 120 1.4 Wetland forested mixed 630 503 2.09 96 1.1 Freshwater marshes 641 972 4.0 218 2.5 Saltwater marshes 642 100 0.4 0 0 Wet prairies 643 276 1.1 52 0.6 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-58 August 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-7. (contd) FLUCFCS Cover Type FLUCFCS Code(a) Corridors up to the First Transmission-Line Substation Corridors Beyond the First Transmission-Line Substation(c) Acres Percent Acres Percent Emergent aquatic vegetation 644 61 0.2 10 0.1 Mixed scrub-shrub wetland 646 11 >0.1 0 0 Intermittent ponds 653 34 0.1 16 0.2 

Subtotal – Wetlands 2789 11.4 622 7.2 

Barren Land Disturbed lands 740 114 0.5 24 0.3 

Subtotal – Barren Land 114 0.5 24 0.3 

Transportation, Communications & Utilities Transportation 810 583 2.4 46 0.5 Roads and highways 814 14 0.1 0 0 

Utilities 830 2071 8.4 1113 12.8 

Subtotal – Transportation, 

Communications & Utilities 

 2668 10.9 1159 13.3 

Grand Total 24,558 100 8696 100 

Source: PEF 2009b. (a) FLUCFCS = Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FDOT 1999). (b) Also includes non-transmission line offsite facilities. (c) Excludes acreage of FLUCFCS cover types already accounted for in corridors up to the first transmission-line substation because of corridor 

overlap. 

(d) All tree plantations were assumed planted to pine and thus classified as coniferous plantations (FLUCFCS 441). (e) Includes 6.7 ac of FLUCFCS 434 described by the St. John’s Water Management District as Upland Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-59 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Common mammals observed or expected to use the associated offsite facilities corridors 

2 include species such as the white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, raccoon, opossum, gray 

3 squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis), feral hog, and 

4 nine-banded armadillo. Common birds expected include the black vulture (Coragyps atratus), 

5 red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk, wild turkey, great blue heron, 

6 American coot (Fulvica americana), American wood duck, common moorhen (Gallinula 

7 chloropus), great egret, red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), cattle egret (Bubulcus 

8 ibis), northern mockingbird, eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella 

9 magna), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), among numerous others. Common reptiles 

10 and amphibians expected include the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Florida box 

11 turtle (Terrapene carolina bauri), cottonmouth, black racer, yellow rat snake (Elaphe obsolete 

12 quadrivittata), green anole (Anolis carolinensis), ground skink, oak toad, and southern leopard 

13 frog, among others. 

14 These determinations of wildlife presence are based upon wildlife-habitat relationships in central 

15 Florida and the onsite surveys (PEF 2008a, 2009a, h; Golder Associates 2008). Because 

16 landscapes associated with the corridors are generally similar in terms of common habitats and 

17 levels of disturbance, these species are expected to be equally common in corridors up to the 

18 first substation and in corridors beyond the first substation. 

19 2.4.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats – Site and Vicinity 

20 The NRC defines important species as rare, having economic value, being relied on by a 

21 valuable species, playing an ecological role, or being ecologically sensitive (NRC 2000). Rare 

22 species include the following: those listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and 

23 Wildlife Service (FWS); proposed for listing as threatened or endangered; published in the 

24 Federal Register as a candidate for listing; or listed as threatened, endangered, or another 

25 species of concern status by the State in which the proposed facility is located. Importance is 

26 also bestowed on species that are either commercially or recreationally valuable as well as 

27 those species that are essential to the maintenance and survival of valuable species. Species 

28 that occupy a role critical to the function of the local ecosystem are also considered important, in 

29 addition to species that may serve as biological indicators for environmental change. 

30 Conservation set-aside lands (sanctuaries, refuges, or preserves), habitats designated by State 

31 and/or Federal governments to receive protection priority (unique or rare), wetlands/floodplains, 

32 and critical habitat designated as such for species Federally listed as threatened or endangered 

33 are all considered “important habitats” (NRC 2000). Although the LNP site does not contain any 

34 critical habitat for threatened or endangered species, there are State sanctuaries, preserves, 

35 and other lands in the vicinity of the site that receive priority protections. In addition, Federal 

36 and State jurisdictional wetlands occur both on the LNP site and in the site vicinity. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-60 August 2010 

1 To identify important species and habitats that may occur on or near the LNP site, PEF 

2 reviewed applicable agency websites, agency databases, and relevant literature pertaining to 

3 the site (PEF 2009a). PEF contractors completed pedestrian surveys of the LNP site between 

4 September 2006 and November 2008 to characterize onsite habitats, document species 

5 presence, and identify areas that may support important terrestrial species and habitats (PEF 

6 2009h). Wetlands on the LNP site were delineated, and subsequently verified by the USACE. 

7 This section summarizes the information gathered about important terrestrial species and 

8 habitats that may occur in the vicinity of the LNP site. 

9 Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species 

10 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531), was passed by 

11 Congress for the purpose of conserving habitats upon which endangered and threatened 

12 species depend, and for conservation and recovery of listed species. The ESA is administered 

13 by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s FWS and the Commerce Department’s National Marine 

14 Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under the ESA, a Federally endangered species is defined as one 

15 in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A Federally threatened 

16 species is defined as one likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all 

17 or a significant portion its range. 

18 The State of Florida also lists endangered, threatened and species of special concern (SSC) 

19 under Florida Administrative Code 68A-27 for animal species. These regulations are 

20 implemented by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). Further, the 

21 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) lists plants on the 

22 Regulated Plant Index as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited (Fla. Admin. Code 

23 5B-40). FDACS regulates the unlawful harvesting of native flora without permission from the 

24 landowner, but does not regulate removal of listed plants for development or other land25 alteration activities on privately owned land (35 Fla. Stat. 581). Furthermore, the LNP project 

26 would be exempt from restrictions on native flora disturbances during clearing under (8)(c) of 

27 Florida Statutes 581.185 (Hildebrandt 2010). 

28 Endangered, threatened, and other special-status Federal and State species that may occur on 

29 or near the LNP site are presented in Table 2-8, which includes Federal species with recorded 

30 occurrences in Levy and Citrus Counties, as presented on the FWS website (FWS 2009a). The 

31 FFWCC provided a list of sensitive State species that could occur on the site as part of the 

32 FDEP’s coordinated review of the Site Certification Application submitted by PEF for the 

33 proposed LNP (FDEP 2010a). 

34 The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) and FFWCC compile and maintain comprehensive 

35 databases of biological resources in Florida, including documented occurrences of both 

36 Federally and State-listed protected plant and animal species. The FNAI Occurrence Report 

37 (PEF 2008a) and FFWCC Environmental Resource Analysis (FFWCC 2009a) generated for the 

38 LNP site identified several protected species (e.g., gopher tortoise, eastern indigo snake 
August 2010 2-61 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment Table 2-8. Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring on the LNP Site and Associated 1 Facilities 2 Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation Mammals Florida mouse Podomys floridanus N SSC Xeric upland communities with sandy soils, including scrub, sandhill, and ruderal sites Possible Possible Possible Florida saltmarsh vole Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli E E Saltgrass meadows adjacent to black needlerush in Levy County Unlikely Possible Unlikely Homosassa shrew Sorex longirostris eionis N SSC Forested wetlands, hammocks, pine flatwoods, pine sandhill, palmetto thickets and clearcuts Possible Possible Possible Sherman’s fox squirrel Sciurus niger shermani N SSC Sandhills, pine flatwoods, pastures, and other open, ruderal habitats with scattered pines and oaks Unlikely Observed Observed Florida panther Puma concolor coryi E E Extensive blocks of forestland and large wetlands Unlikely Unlikely Possible Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus N T Large areas of forested uplands and forested wetlands Possible Possible Observed Birds Scott’s seaside sparrow Ammodramus maritimus N SSC Tidal marshes Unlikely Possible Possible Florida scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T T Low-growing oak scrub habitat Unlikely Observed Possible Limpkin Aramus guarauna N SSC Mangroves, freshwater marshes, swamps, springs, spring runs, pond, river, and lake margins Possible Possible Possible 3 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-62 August 2010 

Affected Environment 1 Table 2-8. (contd) Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation Florida burrowing owl 

Athene cunicularia floridana

N SSC Dry, sparsely vegetated, sandy ground, 

including dry prairie, sandhill, and disturbed areas (e.g., pastures, parks, school grounds, road right-of-ways) 

Unlikely Possible Possible 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus

T T Tidal mudflats Unlikely Unlikely Possible 

Marian’s marsh wren Cistothorus palustris marianae

N SSC Tidal marshes Unlikely Possible Possible 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea 

N SSC Freshwater lakes, marshes, swamps, and 

streams; roosts in cypress trees 

Possible Observed Possible 

Snowy egret Egretta thula

N SSC Freshwater and coastal wetlands, streams, 

lakes, and swamps, manmade impoundments, ditches 

Possible Observed Possible 

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor

N SSC Wetlands, ditches, pond and lake edges, 

coastal areas 

Possible Observed Possible 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus 

N SSC Freshwater and brackish marshes, salt 

flats, forested wetlands, wet prairies, swales, manmade ditches 

Observed Observed Possible 

Southeastern American kestrel Falco sparverius paulus 

N T Open pine habitats, woodland edges, 

prairies, and pastures 

Possible Possible Observed 

Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis 

N T Prairies, freshwater marshes, and 

pastures 

Unlikely Possible Possible 

American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus

N SSC Mudflats Unlikely Possible Possible 

Wood stork Mycteria americana

E E Cypress strands and domes, mixed 

hardwood swamps 

Observed Observed Observed 
August 2010 2-63 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment Table 2-8. (contd) Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis N SSC Coastal waters, bays and estuaries; nesting on small islands in bays and estuaries Unlikely Possible Possible Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E SSC Mature longleaf and slash pine forests; present in the Goethe State Forest Unlikely Possible Possible Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja N SSC Tidal flats, coastal and freshwater marshes Unlikely Possible Possible Black skimmer Rynchops niger N SSC Coastal waters; also large lakes, phosphate pits, and flooded agricultural fields Unlikely Possible Possible Least tern Sterna antillarum N T Coastal areas, beaches, lagoons, bays, estuaries Unlikely Possible Possible Reptiles American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T SSC Most permanent bodies of fresh water, including marshes, swamps, lakes, and rivers Observed Observed Possible Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon couperi T T Broad range of habitats, from scrub and sandhill to wet prairies and mangrove swamps; often commensal with gopher tortoises Possible Observed Possible Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus N T Dry upland habitats, including sandhills, scrub, xeric oak hammock, and dry pine flatwoods; also pastures, old fields Observed Observed Observed Sand skink Neoseps reynoldsi T T Rosemary scrub, sand pine and oak scrubs, scrubby flatwoods, turkey oak ridges within scrub, citrus groves occupying former scrub Unlikely Possible Unlikely 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-64 August 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-8. (contd) Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation Florida pine snake

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus 

N SSC Sandhills, old fields and pastures, sand 

pine scrub, scrubby flatwoods; often commensal with gopher tortoises and pocket gophers 

Possible Possible Possible 

Short-tailed snakeStilosoma extenuatum 

N T Sandhills, xeric hammock, and sand pine 

scrub 

Possible Possible Possible 

Amphibians

Gopher frogRana capito 

N SSC Sandhills and scrub with isolated wetlands 

or large ponds; commensal with gopher tortoises. 

Possible Possible Possible 

Plants

Brittle maidenhair fern (Adiantum tenerum) 

N E Limestone outcrops, grottoes, sinkholes Unlikely Possible Possible 

Incised groove-bur(Agrimonia incise) 

N E Sandhills and scrub Unlikely Possible Possible 

Variable-leaved Indianplantain(Arnoglossum diversifolium) 

N T Freshwater and riparian habitats Possible Possible Possible 

Golden leather fern (Acrostichum aureum) 

N T Brackish and freshwater marshes Possible Possible Possible 

Pine-woods bluestem (Andropogon arctatus) 

N T Wet pine flatwoods Possible Possible Possible 

Auricled spleenwort (Asplenium erosum) 

N E Pinelands Possible Possible Possible 

Dwarf spleenwort (Asplenium pumilum) 

N E Pinelands Possible Possible Possible 

Modest spleenwort (Asplenium 

N E Rockland hammocks, limestone outcrops, 

grottoes, sinkholes 

Unlikely Possible Possible 
August 2010 2-65 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment Table 2-8. (contd) Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation verecundum) Nuttall’s rayless goldenrod 

(Bigelowia nuttallii) 

N E Sand pine scrub in Pinellas County Unlikely Possible Possible 

Sinkhole fern (Blechnum occidentale) 

N E Moist woodlands, hammocks, rocky creek 

banks, woodlands with open shade 

Possible Possible Possible 

Florida bonamia (Bonamia grandiflora) 

T E Openings or disturbed areas in white sand 

scrub 

Unlikely Possible Possible 

Ashe’s savory (Calamintha ashei) 

N T Sandhills and scrub Possible Possible Possible 

Manyflowered grasspink(Calopogon multiflorus) 

N E Dry to moist flatwoods with longleaf pine, 

wiregrass, saw palmetto 

Unlikely Possible Possible 

Brooksville bellflower (Campanula robinsiae) 

E E Wet, grassy slopes and drying pond edges 

in vicinity of Chinsegut Hill in Hernando County 

Unlikely Unlikely Possible 

Chapman’s sedge(Carex chapmanii)

N E Grasslands, pinelands Possible Possible Possible 

Sand butterfly pea (Centrosema arenicola) 

N E Sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, dry upland 

woods 

Possible Possible Possible 

Sanddune spurge (Chamaesyce cumulicola)

N E Coastal scrub and stabilized dunes Unlikely Possible Possible 

Southern lip fern (Cheilanthes microphylla) 

N E Coastal habitats Unlikely Possible Possible 

Pygmy fringe tree (Chionanthus pygmaeus) 

E E Scrub, sandhill, and xeric hammock Unlikely Possible Possible 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-66 August 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-8. (contd) Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation Florida goldenaster 

(Chrysopsis floridana) 

E E Sand pine scrub, sand ridges of 

excessively well-drained, fine sands, railroad and highway corridors 

Unlikely Unlikely Possible 

Piedmont jointgrass (Coelorachis tuberculosa) 

N T Freshwater habitats Possible Possible Possible 

Longspurred mint (Dicerandra cornutissima) 

E E Sand pine and oak scrub Unlikely Observed Unlikely 

Spoon-leavf sundew (Drosera intermedia) 

N T Freshwater habitats Possible Possible Possible 

Sanibel lovegrass (Eragrostis pectinaceavar. tracyi) 

N E Disturbed beach dunes, maritime 

hammocks, coastal strands, coastal grasslands, old fields, clearings, and other disturbed sites 

Unlikely Possible Possible 

Scrub wild buckwheat (Eriogonum longifoliumvar. gnaphalifolium) 

T E Sandhill, oak-hickory scrub Unlikely Possible Possible 

Wood spurge (Euphorbia commutata) 

N E Riparian habitats Possible Possible Possible 

Godfrey’s swampprivet(Forestiera godfreyi)

N E Upland hardwood forests with limestone at 

or near the surface, often on slopes above lakes and rivers 

Possible Possible Possible 

Coastal mock vervain (Glandularia maritima) 

N E Back dunes, dune swales, coastal 

hammocks 

Possible Observed Possible 

Tampa mock vervain (Glandularia tampensis) 

N E Live oak–cabbage palm hammocks and 

pine-palmetto flatwoods 

Possible Possible Possible 

Wild cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) 

N E Coastal strands and disturbed areas Unlikely Possible Possible 
August 2010 2-67 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment Table 2-8. (contd) Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation Hartwrightia 

(Hartwrightia floridana) 

N T Seepage slopes, edges of baygalls and 

springheads, wet prairies, flatwoods 

Possible Possible Possible 

Florida hasteola (Hasteola robertiorum) 

N E Saturated, peaty soils of river and creek 

floodplain swamps; hydric hammocks with cabbage palm, cypress, or hardwood canopy 

Possible Possible Possible 

Edison’s ascyrum (Hypericum edisonianum) 

N E Depressions in scrub, cut-throat seeps, 

flatwoods ponds, lake margins, wet prairie 

Possible Possible Possible 

Star anise (Illicium parviflorum) 

N E Banks of spring-run or seepage streams, 

bottomland forest, hydric 

Possible Possible Possible 

Cooley’s water-willow (Justicia cooleyi) 

E E Mesic hardwood hammocks over 

limestone 

Unlikely Possible Possible 

Nodding pinweed (Lechea cernua) 

N T Usually ancient dunes with evergreen 

scrub oaks, mature scattered pine or oak forest 

Possible Possible Possible 

Pine pinweed (Lechea divaricata)

N E Scrub and scrubby flatwoods Unlikely Possible Possible 

Corkwood(Leitneria floridana)

N T Edges of marshy openings and along 

small drainages in coastal hydric hammocks; fresh or tidal marshes 

Possible Possible Possible 

Pondspice(Litsea aestivalis)

N E Edges of baygalls, flatwoods ponds, and 

cypress domes. May form thickets around edges of ponds 

Possible Possible Possible 

Cardinal-flower (Lobelia cardinalis) 

N T moist meadows, bogs and along stream 

banks 

Possible Possible Possible 

Florida spiny pod(Matelea floridana)

N E Pinelands and temperate forests Possible Possible Possible 

Pinesap (Monotropa hypopithys)

N E Temperate forests Possible Possible Possible 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-68 August 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-8. (contd) Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation Pygmy pipes 

(Monotropsis reynoldsiae) 

N E Upland mixed hardwood forest, mesic and 

xeric hammock, sand pine and oak scrub 

Possible Possible Possible 

Narrowleaf naiads (Najas filifolia) 

N T Freshwater habitats Possible Possible Possible 

Celestial lily (Nemastylis floridana) 

N E Freshwater habitats Possible Possible Possible 

Florida beargrass (Nolina atopocarpa) 

N T Grasslands, pinelands Possible Possible Possible 

Britton’s beargrass (Nolina brittoniana) 

E E Scrub, sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, and 

xeric hammock 

Unlikely Possible Possible 

Hand fern (Ophioglossum palmatum) 

N E Old leaf bases of cabbage palms in 

maritime and wet hammocks 

Possible Possible Possible 

Large-leaved grass-ofparnassus (Parnassia grandifolia) 

N E Seepage slopes, wet prairies, edges of 

cypress strands 

Possible Possible Possible 

Widespread polypody (Pecluma dispersa) 

N E Tree branches and limestone outcrops in 

dry hammocks 

Possible Possible Possible 

Plume polypody (Pecluma plumula) 

N E Tree branches or limestone in hammocks, 

wet woods, and limesinks 

Possible Possible Possible 

Swamp plume polypody (Pecluma ptilodon) 

N E Rockland hammocks, strand swamps, wet 

woods 

Possible Possible Possible 

Terrestrial peperomia (Peperomia humilis) 

N E Shell mounds and limestone outcrops in 

mesic hammocks, coastal berms, cypress swamps 

Unlikely Possible Possible 
August 2010 2-69 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment Table 2-8. (contd) Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation Pinewood dainties

(Phyllanthus leibmannianus ssp. platylepis)

N E Hydric hammocks, floodplain and 

bottomland forests 

Possible Observed Possible 

Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integra) 

N E Wet pine flatwoods, wet prairies, 

depressions within pinelands 

Possible Possible Possible 

Lewton’s polygala (Polygala lewtonii) 

E E Oak scrub, sandhill Unlikely Possible Possible 

Small’s jointweed (Polygonella myriophylla) 

E E Open, sandy areas within scrub Unlikely Possible Possible 

Scrub plum (Prunus geniculata) 

E E Sandhill and oak scrub Unlikely Possible Possible 

Giant orchid(Pteroglossaspis ecristata)

N T Sandhill, scrub, pine flatwoods, pine 

rocklands 

Unlikely Possible Observed 

Florida mountain-mint (Pycnanthemum floridanum) 

N T Pinelands, sandhills, scrub Possible Possible Possible 

Browneyed Susan (Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatiloba) 

N E Freshwater habitats, grasslands, pinelands Possible Possible Possible 

Florida willow (Salix floridana) 

N E Springheads, edges of spring runs, hydric 

hammocks, floodplains 

Possible Possible Possible 

Scrub bluestem (Schizachyrium niveum) 

N E Rosemary, sand pine, and oak scrub Possible Possible Possible 

Silver buckthorn (Sideroxylon alachuense) 

N E Upland hardwood forests around limesinks Possible Possible Possible 

Buckthorn (Sideroxylon lycioides) 

N E Wooded slopes, floodplains, and bluffs Possible Possible Possible 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-70 August 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-8. (contd) Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation Pinkroot

(Spigelia loganioides)

N E Floodplain forests, upland and hydric 

hardwood hammocks over limestone 

Possible Possible Possible 

Green ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes polyantha)

N E Rock outcrops in mesic hammock, 

rockland hammock, maritime hammock 

Unlikely Possible Possible 

Scrub stylisma (Stylisma abdita ) 

N E Pinelands, sandhills, scrub Possible Possible Possible 

Creeping maiden fern (Thelypteris reptans) 

N E Limestone grottoes and sinkholes Unlikely Possible Possible 

Toothed maiden fern (Thelypteris serrata) 

N E Cypress swamps, sloughs, floodplains Possible Possible Possible 

Florida filmy fern (Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum)

N E Rock outcrops Unlikely Possible Possible 

Broad-leaved noddingcaps (Triphora amazonica) 

N E Rich damp hardwood hammocks Possible Possible Possible 

Craighead’s noddingcaps (Triphora craigheadii)

N E Mesic hardwood hammocks Possible Possible Possible 
August 2010 2-71 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment Table 2-8. (contd) Common Name/ Scientific Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Suitable Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence(b) LNP Site Associated Facilities Up to First Substation Beyond First Substation Ocala vetch 

(Vicia ocalensis) 

N E Open, wet thickets along margins of spring 

runs and streams 

Possible Possible Possible 

Wide-leaf warea (Warea amplexifolia) 

E E Sandhill with longleaf pine and wiregrass Unlikely Possible Possible 

Carter’s mustard (Warea carteri) 

E E Sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, scrub Unlikely Possible Possible 

Sources: PEF 2008a, 2009a, h; Golder Associates 2008; FFWCC 2009a. (a) E = Endangered; T = Threatened; N = Not Listed; SSC = Florida Species of Special Concern. Florida does not assign plants species to the 

SSC category. 

(b) Observed = documented during LNP project surveys (PEF 2008a, 2009a, h; Golder Associates 2008), or known from a State or Federal 

database record; Possible = potentially present as based upon (1) nearby database records or observations, or (2) the presence of suitable habitat within the known range for that species; Unlikely = not expected to be present because (1) the area is outside the known range for 

that species, (2) suitable habitat is not present, or (3) protocol surveys did not detect the species. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-72 August 2010 

1 [Drymarchon corais couperi], and Florida scrub jay [Aphelocoma coerulescens]) known to occur 

2 in the vicinity of the LNP site. Although there were no documented occurrences of protected 

3 species on the LNP site, both reports identified the site as having the potential to provide habitat 

4 for several protected species. Pedestrian surveys on the LNP site completed by PEF (2009a, h) 

5 provided additional information about the presence of protected plants and animals and/or their 

6 habitats on the LNP site. The only targeted surveys completed onsite for protected species 

7 were for the gopher tortoise (PEF 2009a). A condition of certification by the FDEP would 

8 require protocol surveys for all State-listed species that may occur on the LNP site and 

9 associated facilities prior to vegetation “clearing and construction” (FDEP 2010a). 

10 The review team (composed of NRC staff, its contractor staff, and USACE staff) has prepared a 

11 biological assessment that addresses Federally listed threatened and endangered plant and 

12 animal species that potentially could occur on or near the LNP site. Life-history attributes of 

13 federally-listed species are provided in more detail in the biological assessment. The biological 

14 assessment is provided in Appendix F. 

15 A brief discussion of Federal and some of the State-protected terrestrial species that could 

16 occur in the LNP site vicinity is provided below. 

17 Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

18 Federal – Not Listed; Florida – Threatened 

19 Gopher tortoises typically occur in dry upland habitats such as sandhills (generally 

20 corresponding to FLUCFCS 412), scrub (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 413 and 421), 

21 xeric oak hammock (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 427), and dry pine flatwoods 

22 (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 411), as well as disturbed sites such as pastures, old 

23 fields, and road shoulders (FNAI 2009). The burrows they excavate serve as a refuge for other 

24 commensal species such as the eastern indigo snake, gopher frog (Rana capito), Florida mouse 

25 (Podomys floridanus), and Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) (FNAI 2009). 

26 PEF conducted targeted surveys for gopher tortoises at the LNP site and for the associated 

27 facilities immediately south of the LNP site (PEF 2009a). In total, 58 gopher tortoise burrows 

28 were documented in both areas. Most burrows were located in areas with relatively open 

29 canopy and shrub layers, along existing roads, edges of wetlands, and in spoil areas. The 

30 shallow groundwater depth on the LNP site acts to limit the distribution and density of gopher 

31 tortoise burrows. Their occurrence increased toward the south, immediately north of CR-40 and 

32 along the spoil areas of the CFBC. 

33 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-73 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) 

2 Federal – Threatened; Florida – Threatened 

3 The eastern indigo snake occupies a broad range of habitats, varying from scrub and sandhill 

4 habitats (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 412, 413, and 421) to moister communities such 

5 as wet prairies (FLUCFCS 643) and swamps (FNAI 2009). It requires large tracts of habitat to 

6 survive. It often winters in gopher tortoise burrows, especially in northern Florida where 

7 temperatures are cooler. Although the eastern indigo snake was not observed during field 

8 surveys of the LNP site (PEF 2009a, h), the species has been documented in the site vicinity 

9 (PEF 2008a; FFWCC 2009a). The closest known record for this species is about 2 mi west of 

10 the LNP site (FNAI 2009). There is potential for this species to occur on the LNP site due to the 

11 presence of suitable habitat and gopher tortoises. 

12 Florida Pine Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) 

13 Federal – Not Listed; Florida – Species of Special Concern 

14 The Florida pine snake burrows in dry sandy soils in habitats with relatively open canopies, 

15 especially within xeric sandhills (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 412) or former sandhill 

16 communities (presently occurring as old fields and pastures), as well as sand pine scrub 

17 (FLUCFCS 413) and scrubby flatwoods (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 423 and 432) 

18 (FNAI 2009). It spends most of its time below ground, with occasional surface activity from 

19 spring through fall. The species is often associated with the burrow systems of gopher tortoises 

20 and pocket gophers (Geomys pinetis). Most dry upland habitats on the LNP site have been 

21 converted to coniferous pine plantations; reducing habitat suitability, but gopher tortoises have 

22 been documented onsite. Although the Florida pine snake was not identified during field 

23 surveys of the LNP site (PEF 2009a, h), the species has been documented in the vicinity 

24 (FFWCC 2009a). Consequently, there is a potential for this secretive species to occur on the 

25 LNP site. 

26 Short-Tailed Snake (Stilosoma extenuatum) 

27 Federal – Not Listed; Florida – Threatened 

28 The short-tailed snake occupies dry upland habitats, principally sandhill (generally 

29 corresponding to FLUCFCS 412), xeric hammock (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 427 

30 and 4362), and sand pine scrub (FLUCFCS 413) (FNAI 2009). This species is a secretive 

31 burrower only rarely seen above ground or under cover objects. Most above-ground activity 

32 occurs in October and November, with a few sightings in March and April. Dry upland habitats 

33 on the LNP site have been altered by forest management, reducing habitat suitability for the 

34 short-tailed snake. No short-tailed snakes were identified by PEF (2009a, h) during field 

35 surveys of the LNP site, but the species has been documented in the vicinity (FFWCC 2009a). 

36 Consequently, there is a potential for this species to occur on the LNP site. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-74 August 2010 

1 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) 

2 Federal – Threatened by Similarity of Appearance; Florida – Species of Special Concern 

3 The American alligator is classified as a Federal threatened species and a Florida species of 

4 special concern because of its similarity in appearance to the endangered American crocodile 

5 (Crocodylus acutus) (FNAI 2009). The range of the American crocodile, however, is limited to 

6 coastal estuarine marshes and tidal swamps in south Florida. The American alligator is a 

7 common inhabitant of most freshwater habitats in Florida, including marshes and swamps such 

8 as those found on the LNP site. One juvenile American alligator was observed on the LNP site 

9 during field surveys conducted by PEF (2009a, h). 

10 Gopher Frog (Rana capito) 

11 Federal – Not Listed; Florida – Species of Special Concern 

12 The gopher frog inhabits dry sandy uplands, primarily sandhill and scrub (generally 

13 corresponding to FLUCFCS 412, 413, and 421) that includes isolated wetlands or large ponds 

14 within about 1 mi of the upland (FNAI 2009). Breeding occurs chiefly in seasonally flooded, 

15 temporary ponds, but also in some permanent waters. Gopher frogs are generally nocturnal, 

16 normally spending daytime in stumpholes, tunnels, or burrows, especially those of gopher 

17 tortoise. Although the gopher frog was not identified during field surveys of the LNP site (PEF 

18 2009a, h), the species is known in the site vicinity (PEF 2008a; FFWCC 2009a). The closest 

19 record for this species is about a-half mile east of the site (PEF 2008a). Although the alteration 

20 of dry upland habitats on the LNP site by forest management has reduced habitat suitability, the 

21 presence of gopher tortoises indicates a potential for this species to occur. 

22 Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) 

23 Federal – Not Listed; Florida – Threatened 

24 The southeastern American kestrel is found in open pine habitats, woodland edges, prairies, 

25 and pastures throughout much of Florida (FNAI 2009). Only the resident (i.e., year-round) 

26 subspecies that breeds in Florida is listed as threatened; northern migrant American kestrels 

27 that winter in Florida (generally from September through March) are not listed. Nesting usually 

28 occurs in cavities excavated by various woodpeckers in large snags (pines and occasionally 

29 oaks) or utility poles with unobstructed views of the surrounding landscape (FNAI 2009). Nest30 box programs have been used to augment populations in many areas. 

31 The southeastern American kestrel may breed on the LNP site if suitable nest cavities are 

32 present. The conversion of native habitats to coniferous pine plantations has degraded suitable 

33 nesting habitat for kestrels. Nevertheless, PEF (2009a, h) has observed American kestrels on 

34 the LNP site in all seasons, including summer. Any American kestrel found during the breeding 

35 season (April through early September) should be treated as the listed subspecies. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-75 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

2 Federal – Endangered; Florida – Species of Special Concern 

3 The red-cockaded woodpecker is endemic to open, mature, and old growth pine ecosystems in 

4 the southeastern United States (FWS 2003). The species requires open pine woodlands and 

5 savannahs with large old pines for nesting, roosting, and foraging. In northern and central 

6 Florida, it favors mature longleaf pine flatwoods (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 411 and 

7 412) (FNAI 2009). This cooperative breeding species excavates nest cavities in large, live older 

8 pines from stands containing little to no hardwood in the midstory and overstory. Home range 

9 size varies between 100 and 400 acres per family group, depending upon quality of the foraging 

10 habitat (FWS 2003). Insects comprise more than 75 percent of the adult diet, with fruits and 

11 seeds making up the remainder (FWS 2003). Suitable foraging habitat consists of mature pines 

12 with an open canopy, low densities of small pines, little or no hardwood or pine midstory, few or 

13 no overstory hardwoods, and abundant native bunchgrass and forb groundcovers (FWS 2003). 

14 Cypress trees account for about 10 percent of foraging time in south-central Florida, and 

15 hardwoods represent a minor (0–5 percent) foraging substrate. 

16 No red-cockaded woodpeckers have been observed on the LNP site (PEF 2009a, h). The 

17 young, heavily managed pine plantations that characterize uplands on the site do not provide 

18 suitable nesting or foraging habitat. A large population of red-cockaded woodpeckers does 

19 occur in the Goethe State Forest, which is directly north and northwest of the LNP site (FDACS 

20 2009). The Florida Division of Forestry actively manages habitat on the Goethe State Forest 

21 and supplements the population by translocating birds from other areas to improve population 

22 viability (Petersen 2010). An abandoned red-cockaded woodpecker cluster (i.e., an aggregation 

23 of cavity trees used by a family group of red-cockaded woodpeckers) is located immediately 

24 north of the LNP site on the Goethe State Forest. Reoccupation of this cluster by red-cockaded 

25 woodpeckers is unlikely at this time because there are no current plans to restore habitat there 

26 (Petersen 2010). Several active clusters lie between 1.5 and 2.5 mi from the LNP site. 

27 Considering the size of red cockaded woodpecker home ranges of 100–400 ac (FWS 2003), the 

28 distance of these active clusters from the LNP site and the lack of suitable habitat onsite, no 

29 more than incidental use of LNP site by red cockaded woodpeckers would be expected. 

30 Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) 

31 Federal – Threatened; Florida – Threatened 

32 The Florida scrub jay occupies fire-dominated, low-growing oak scrub habitat found on well33 drained sandy soils (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 413 and 421) (FNAI 2009). 

34 Populations of this species may persist in areas with sparser oaks or overgrown scrub, but at 

35 lower densities. No Florida scrub jays were identified during field surveys of the LNP site (PEF 

36 2009a), but the species has been documented in the site vicinity (PEF 2008a; FFWCC 2009a). 

37 Three historic records of scrub jays are associated with scrub oak habitat located 3 to 5 mi from 

38 the LNP site (PEF 2008a). Xeric, well-drained scrub habitats preferred by scrub jays are 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-76 August 2010 

1 uncommon on the LNP site. No scrub oak species, a key indicator of potential habitat 

2 suitability, were identified during field surveys of the LNP site (PEF 2009h). The conversion of 

3 most upland habitats to coniferous pine plantations has removed suitable habitat for this species 

4 and reduced the likelihood for its occurrence onsite. 

5 Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) 

6 Federal – Endangered; Florida – Endangered 

7 The wood stork is a highly colonial species that usually nests and feeds in freshwater and 

8 brackish wetlands (FWS 1997). Nesting occurs in a variety of inundated forested wetlands, 

9 including cypress stands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, sloughs, and mangroves 

10 (FNAI 2009). Nesting colonies (rookeries) in central and northern Florida generally form in 

11 February and March. The species forages in a wide variety of shallow-water wetland habitats 

12 ranging from drainage ditches to marshes, ponds, and hardwood swamps. Wood storks are 

13 tactile rather than visual feeders, using their bills to probe shallow water for small fish, their 

14 primary prey. They feed preferentially in depressions where the prey can become concentrated 

15 during low-water periods. 

16 Wood storks have been observed feeding in ditches and wetlands on the LNP site, but no 

17 nesting colonies have been detected (PEF 2009a, h). Suitable rookery habitat is limited on the 

18 site, primarily because of forest-management activities and a lack of suitable open-water 

19 habitat. The LNP site is not located within the core foraging area of any active wood stork 

20 rookery (FWS 2009b). Wood Storks have been observed roosting with other wading birds in 

21 forest stands located 8 to 9 mi west of the LNP site (Entrix 2009). 

22 Other Wading Birds

23 Several other species of wading birds classified as Florida species of special concern have 

24 been observed foraging in wetlands on the LNP site (e.g., white ibis) or may occasionally feed 

25 there (e.g., little blue heron [Egretta caerulea]; snowy egret [E. thula]; tricolored heron, [E. 

26 tricolor]; and limpkin [Aramus guarauna]). Wading birds throughout Florida forage in a variety of 

27 permanently and seasonally flooded wetlands, creeks, ditches, ponds, and lakes. No wading28 bird rookeries were observed on the LNP site (PEF 2009a). Suitable wading-bird rookery 

29 habitat is limited primarily because of forest-management activities. However, wading-bird 

30 rookeries are documented in the site vicinity along Lake Rousseau to the southeast of the LNP 

31 site (PEF 2008a). Wading bird roosts have been observed in forest stands located 8 to 9 mi 

32 west of the LNP site (Entrix 2009). 

33 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-77 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) 

2 Federal – Not Listed; Florida – Threatened 

3 The Florida sandhill crane inhabits prairies, freshwater marshes and pasturelands throughout 

4 most of peninsular Florida, and will often forage on agricultural lands and golf courses (FNAI 

5 2009). The species is nonmigratory and very sedentary, although it may forage widely. Nests 

6 consisting of mounds of herbaceous vegetation are built in shallow wetlands and marshes. 

7 Florida sandhill cranes are indistinguishable from greater sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis 

8 tabida), an unlisted migratory species that winters throughout much of Florida. Greater sandhill 

9 cranes generally arrive in October and depart in March (FNAI 2009). Although sandhill cranes 

10 were occasionally observed on the LNP site, none were detected during the breeding season 

11 and no nests were documented (PEF 2009a, h). There are no occurrence records for Florida 

12 sandhill crane from the project vicinity (PEF 2008a; FFWCC 2009a). This suggests that sandhill 

13 crane observations from the LNP site likely represent the unlisted greater sandhill crane. 

14 Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) 

15 Federal – Not Listed; Florida – Threatened 

16 Florida black bears occupy expansive areas of upland forest and forested wetlands (FNAI 

17 2009). Forested wetlands are particularly important for diurnal cover, and baygalls/bayheads 

18 (FLUCFCS 611) are important for cover and dens. No Florida black bears were identified 

19 during field surveys of the LNP site (PEF 2009a, h), and there are no records from the site 

20 vicinity (PEF 2008a; FFWCC 2009a). However, the species is known to inhabit the Goethe 

21 State Forest that abuts the northeastern boundary of the LNP site (FDACS 2009). Considering 

22 the large home range of black bears and the presence of forested swamps on the LNP site, it is 

23 possible Florida black bears may occasionally forage on the LNP site or traverse the site when 

24 moving across the regional landscape. 

25 Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) 

26 Federal – Not Listed; Florida – Species of Special Concern 

27 Sherman’s fox squirrels inhabit sandhills (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 412), pine 

28 flatwoods (FLUCFCS 411), and pastures, as well as other open, ruderal habitats with scattered 

29 pines and oaks (FNAI 2009). The species is dependent upon on a variety of oaks for seasonal 

30 food and nest material. Longleaf pine cones and seeds are important foods as well. No 

31 Sherman’s fox squirrels were identified during field surveys of the LNP site (PEF 2009a, h), and 

32 there are no species records from the site vicinity (PEF 2008a; FFWCC 2009a). However, the 

33 species is known to inhabit the Goethe State Forest that abuts the northeastern boundary of the 

34 LNP site (FDACS 2009). Sherman’s fox squirrel has been eliminated from much of its former 

35 habitat as a result of conversion to pine plantation, row crops, or development (FNAI 2009). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-78 August 2010 

1 The conversion of native upland habitats on the LNP site to coniferous pine plantations has 

2 removed most suitable habitat for this species and reduced the likelihood for its occurrence. 

3 Florida Mouse (Podomys floridanus) 

4 Federal – Not Listed; Florida – Species of Special Concern 

5 The Florida mouse occupies dry upland communities with sandy soils, including scrub, sandhill 

6 (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 412, 413, and 421), and ruderal sites where they inhabit 

7 burrows of the gopher tortoise (FNAI 2009). In the absence of gopher tortoises, the Florida 

8 mouse will dig its own burrow or use those of other mice. Although the Florida mouse was not 

9 identified during field surveys of the LNP site (PEF 2009a, h), the species is known in the site 

10 vicinity (PEF 2008a). Dry upland communities on the LNP site have been altered by forest 

11 management and do not provide good habitat for this species. Nonetheless, the presence of 

12 gopher tortoises indicates a potential for this species to occur on the LNP site. 

13 Homosassa Shrew (Sorex longirostris eionis) 

14 Federal – Not Listed; Florida – Species of Special Concern 

15 Although the Homosassa shrew was once thought to be limited to a single locality (Homosassa 

16 Springs), its distribution has now been expanded to include the northern two-thirds of peninsular 

17 Florida (Jones et al. 1991). The species has been documented in a wide variety of habitats, 

18 including forested wetlands, xeric and hydric hammocks, pine flatwoods, pine sandhill, palmetto 

19 thickets, and clear-cuts. Although the Homosassa shrew was not identified during field surveys 

20 of the LNP site (PEF 2009a, h), suitable habitat for this species is present on the site. 

21 Protected Plants

22 The PEF (2008a) Occurrence Report for the LNP site identifies several documented 

23 occurrences of protected plant species near the LNP site, but none for the site. PEF (2008a) 

24 biodiversity models also suggest the potential for several species to occur onsite, based upon 

25 suitable habitat and/or known occurrences in the vicinity. A Godfrey’s swampprivet (Forestiera 

26 godfreyi – no Federal status, State Endangered) specimen was documented in 1937 just 

27 outside of the northwestern site boundary near US-19/US-98, and FNAI biodiversity models 

28 indicate that this species could occur on the LNP site (PEF 2008a). No recent documentation 

29 for this shrub is known. Pinewood dainties (Phyllanthus leibmannianus – no Federal status, 

30 State Endangered) were documented west of the LNP site. A record for corkwood (Leitneria 

31 floridana – no Federal status, State Threatened) exists northwest of the site, and FNAI 

32 biodiversity models also suggest this species could occur onsite (PEF 2008a). Spoon-leavf 

33 sundew (Drosera intermedia – no Federal status, State Threatened) was recorded in 1958 to 

34 the east of the LNP site in pine flatwoods and roadside swales, but no recent documentation is 

35 known. Several recent records for coastal mock vervain (Glandularia maritima – no Federal 

36 status, State Endangered) have been documented west of the LNP site in disturbed areas along 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-79 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 the CFBC. PEF (2008a) biodiversity models indicate the potential for a number of other rare 

2 plants to occur in the vicinity of the LNP site wherever suitable habitat is available. 

3 Recent surveys for listed plants were conducted several miles west of the LNP site for the 

4 proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine. No Federally listed plants were observed, but six 

5 State-listed plants were detected during these surveys (Entrix 2009). These included corkwood, 

6 cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis – no Federal status, State Threatened), an unidentified spiny 

7 pod (Matelea spp. – no Federal status, State Endangered), angularfruit milkvine (Matelea 

8 gonocarpos – no Federal status, State Threatened), pinewood dainties and browneyed Susan 

9 (Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatiloba – no Federal status, State Endangered). 

10 No targeted surveys for individual protected plants have been conducted on the LNP site. 

11 However, PEF contractors recorded plant species during extensive pedestrian surveys 

12 conducted between September 2006 and November 2008, in conjunction with habitat mapping 

13 and wetland delineation efforts (PEF 2009h). No protected plants were identified during these 

14 surveys (PEF 2009a). Table 2-8 lists protected plant species that could occur on or in the 

15 vicinity of the LNP site, as derived from the PEF (2008a) report and biodiversity modeling. The 

16 conversion of much of the native vegetative communities to managed pine plantation reduces 

17 the likelihood that these rare plants would be present on the LNP site. 

18 Other Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats 

19 Levy County, along with adjacent Gulf Coast counties, is collectively known as Florida’s Nature 

20 Coast. This area is valued for its vast natural areas, water, fish and wildlife resources, and 

21 scenic beauty. No unique or rare habitats, or habitats with priority for protection (other than the 

22 wetlands that are discussed in Section 2.4.1.1), are identified on the LNP site (PEF 2009a). 

23 Plant communities on the LNP site have been modified by years of intensive forest 

24 management that has included extensive soil disturbance, alterations to local drainage patterns, 

25 and the conversion of native habitats to planted pine plantations. However, several preserves 

26 and conservation areas are located near the LNP site, including the Goethe State Forest, 

27 Waccasassa Bay Preserve State Park, Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve, Crystal River 

28 State Buffer Preserve, and the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross-Florida Greenway (Figure 2-17). The 

29 Withlacoochee River, located approximately 2 mi south of the LNP site, is designated by the 

30 State of Florida as an OFW. 

31 Federal and State-listed species that constitute important species are summarized in Table 2-8. 

32 However, a variety of other important species may occur on the LNP site as well (Table 2-9). 

33 Although the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was de-listed under the ESA in 2007, the 

34 species remains Federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and 

35 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bald eagles are locally common throughout peninsular Florida, 

36 preferring coastal areas and inland waterways where fish, waterfowl, and other prey are plentiful 

37 (FNAI 2009). Nests are usually located in tall trees that provide unobstructed views of the 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-80 August 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-17. Important Natural Resources near the LNP Site 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-81 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-9. Other Important Species That May Occur on the LNP Site and Associated Offsite 

Facilities(a) 2 

Common Name/ 

Scientific Name Type Criteria 

LNP 

Site 

Associated Offsite 

Facilities 

Up to First 

Substation 

Beyond First 

Substation 

Bald eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Bird Rare 

Whooping crane 

Grus americana

Bird Threatened; 

Nonessential 

Experimental 

Population 



Northern bobwhite 

Colinus virginianus

Bird Recreationally Valuable 

Wild turkey 

Meleagris gallopavo

Bird Recreationally Valuable 

Mourning dove 

Zenaida macroura

Bird Recreationally Valuable 

Common snipe 

Gallinago gallinago 

Bird Recreationally Valuable 

Various waterfowl Bird Recreationally Valuable 

White-tailed deer 

Odocoileus virginianus

Mammal Recreationally Valuable 

Gray squirrel 

Sciurus carolinensis

Mammal Recreationally Valuable 

Feral hog 

Sus scrofa

Mammal Nuisance 

Sources: PEF 2008a, 2009h; Golder Associates 2008. 

(a) See Table 2-8 for Federally and State-listed terrestrial species that may occur on the LNP site and associated 

facilities. 

3 surrounding landscape. Most bald eagles in northern and central Florida migrate north in late 

4 May through July after the conclusion of breeding. Bald eagles are occasionally observed in 

5 flight over the LNP site (PEF 2009a) and nest regularly in the general site vicinity (PEF 2008a). 

6 Two bald eagle nests are documented south of the LNP site in areas supporting LNP7 associated facilities. 

8 Two small populations of whooping crane (Grus americana) have been reintroduced into 

9 Florida. A nonmigratory population has been established at Kissimmee Prairie in central 

10 Florida, and a second migratory population is being established that would summer and breed 

11 in central Wisconsin and winter on the west-central coast of Florida (FWS 2010b). The 

12 Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge was selected as the wintering site for the migratory 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-82 August 2010 

1 population. Although the whooping crane is Federally listed as endangered, these populations 

2 are classified as nonessential experimental populations under Section 10(j) of the ESA (66 FR 

3 33903). Under Section 10(j), nonessential experimental populations are treated as threatened 

4 and other provisions of the ESA are relaxed to allow for greater management flexibility and to 

5 garner positive public support. Relevant to the proposed LNP project, Section 7 interagency 

6 cooperation requirements are relaxed such that whenever experimental nonessential 

7 populations are outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, Federal agencies are 

8 only required to confer informally with the FWS when proposed actions are likely to result in 

9 jeopardy to the species. 

10 Whooping cranes generally adhere to traditional ancestral breeding areas, migration routes and 

11 wintering grounds (66 FR 33903). The LNP site lies outside of the primary range of the 

12 nonmigratory Kissimmee Prairie population (RENEW/FWS 2007). However, whooping cranes 

13 from the nonmigratory population have ranged over much of peninsular Florida, from Baker 

14 County in the north to Lake Okeechobee in the south. Chassahowitzka National Wildlife 

15 Refuge, the selected wintering site for the migratory population, lies about 18 mi south of the 

16 LNP site. The migration route for this population includes the LNP site vicinity. Suitable 

17 whooping crane habitat in Florida includes shallow palustrine wetlands, lake edges, open 

18 grassprairie, pastureland and salt marsh. No whooping cranes were identified during field 

19 surveys of the LNP site (PEF 2009a, h). However, whooping cranes could pass near the LNP 

20 site during seasonal migrations, and birds from the nonmigratory population could stray into this 

21 area. Although recently cutover forestland and emergent wetlands could provide low foraging 

22 habitat, use of the LNP site by whooping crane is highly unlikely. Any use would likely be 

23 incidental in occurrence. 

24 Recreationally valuable game species that occupy the LNP site include the white-tailed deer, 

25 northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), mourning dove, and wild turkey. These locally 

26 abundant species may be hunted subject to Florida hunting laws and regulations (Fla. Admin. 

27 Code 68A). White-tailed deer are multicover users that prefer habitats with abundant edge 

28 between grassy openings and forest cover. Northern bobwhites thrive in early successional 

29 environments, such as open fields or very young planted pine stands. Mourning doves are very 

30 adaptable and occupy open forests, forest-grassland edge, farmland, and suburban areas 

31 (Giuliano et al 2007). Wild turkeys prefer open mature stands of hardwoods interspersed with 

32 clearings and conifers (Allen et al. 1996). The feral hog, also a hunted species, is considered a 

33 nuisance species and is addressed in Section 2.4.1.1. Feral hogs may be hunted year-round. 

34 2.4.1.4 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats – Associated Offsite Facilities 

35 This section summarizes information gathered about important terrestrial species and habitats 

36 that may occur on or in the vicinity of the associated offsite facilities, including the transmission 

37 lines required to integrate the electrical power generated at the proposed LNP into the Florida 

38 electrical grid system. Pursuant to the PPSA, PEF (2008a, 2009a) identified corridors within 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-83 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 which most of the associated facilities would be sited. These corridors include approximately 

2 180 mi of new transmission lines located over about 148 mi of corridor (multiple lines in some 

3 corridors) that would connect to the Florida electrical grid system (Golder Associates 2008; 

4 CH2M Hill 2009c). About 91 mi of the transmission lines would extend from the southern 

5 boundary of the LNP site to the first substation for each line. An additional 89 mi of 

6 transmission lines would extend beyond the first substations. Refer to Section 2.4.1.2 for a 

7 description of the corridors that would support the associated offsite facilities. 

8 PEF (2009a) reviewed applicable agency websites, agency databases, and relevant literature 

9 pertaining to the associated offsite facilities to identify important species and habitats that may 

10 occur on or near corridors supporting the associated facilities. PEF completed pedestrian and 

11 vehicular field reconnaissance of accessible areas between October 2007 and January 2008 to 

12 characterize onsite habitats, document species presence, and identify areas that may support 

13 important terrestrial species and habitats (PEF 2008a, 2009a,h; Golder Associates 2008). After 

14 the final rights-of-way for the associated facilities are selected and acquired, PEF will complete 

15 a more detailed assessment pursuant to the PPSA, including targeted surveys for important 

16 species and the delineation of wetland boundaries (PEF 2009h). 

17 Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species 

18 Endangered, threatened, and other special-status Federal and State species that may occur on 

19 or near corridors supporting associated offsite facilities are presented in Table 2-8. The 

20 identified species represent a compilation of information from the following sources: Federally 

21 listed species from the FWS (2009a) website for Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter, Lake, Hernando, 

22 Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Polk Counties; State sensitive species list provided by the FFWCC 

23 as part of the FDEP (2009l) coordinated review of the Site Certification Application submitted by 

24 PEF for the LNP project; FFWCC Environmental Resource Analysis (FFWCC 2009a) conducted 

25 for the LNP project; FNAI threatened and endangered species lists and database occurrence 

26 records (Golder Associates 2008); and field survey of accessible areas (PEF 2008a, 2009a; 

27 Golder Associates 2008). The corridor segment between the LNP site and the CFBC received 

28 more extensive evaluation because much of this property has been purchased by PEF. 

29 Targeted surveys for gopher tortoise were conducted in portions of this corridor, particularly 

30 along the route for the heavy-haul road, the makeup-water pipeline, and the blowdown pipeline. 

31 No other surveys for listed species using accepted State or Federal survey protocols were 

32 conducted for the corridors. FDEP (2010a) would require protocol surveys for listed species 

33 that may occur on the final rights-of-way for the associated facilities prior to “clearing and 

34 construction” as a condition of certification. 

35 As many as 32 listed wildlife species could occur in corridors supporting the associated offsite 

36 facilities (Table 2-8). For corridors extending from the LNP site to the first transmission 

37 substations, this includes 30 species – 5 mammals, 18 birds, 6 reptiles, and 1 amphibian. 

38 Listed species observed during reconnaissance surveys conducted by PEF (2008a, 2009a; 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-84 August 2010 

1 Golder Associates 2008) contractors include the Florida scrub jay, little blue heron, snowy egret, 

2 tricolored heron, white ibis, wood stork, American alligator, eastern indigo snake, and gopher 

3 tortoise. Additional PEF (2008a) and FWWCC (2009a) records exist for Sherman’s fox squirrel, 

4 the wood stork, and the American alligator. Corridors extending beyond the first substations 

5 may support 30 listed species including 5 mammals, 19 birds, 5 reptiles, and 1 amphibian. 

6 Species observed during PEF reconnaissance surveys include Sherman’s fox squirrel and 

7 gopher tortoise. Additional PEF (2008a) and FWWCC (2009a) records exist for the Florida 

8 black bear, southeastern American kestrel, and the wood stork. Suitable habitats used by listed 

9 wildlife species that may occur along corridors supporting associated offsite facilities are 

10 summarized in Table 2-8. Species associated with coastal tidelands and waters are generally 

11 limited to the corridor areas near the CREC. Other listed wildlife may occur throughout the 

12 corridors wherever suitable habitat is available. 

13 In total, 76 plant species, Federally or State-listed as threatened or endangered, may occur 

14 within corridors supporting the associated offsite facilities (Table 2-8). All 76 of these plants are 

15 listed by the State of Florida, with 13 also Federally designated. None of these plants was 

16 identified during the pedestrian reconnaissance surveys completed between October 2007 and 

17 January 2008 for the corridors (PEF 2008a; Golder Associates 2008), but no targeted surveys 

18 for rare plants were conducted. Four documented occurrences of listed plants are known from 

19 the FNAI and FFWCC databases. Three species records exist for corridors extending from the 

20 LNP site to the first transmission substations, for pinewood dainties, longspurred mint 

21 (Dicerandra cornutissima), and coastal mockvervain. Pinewood dainties, a State endangered 

22 species, is known from floodplain and bottomland forests (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 

23 615, 617 and 630) and hydric hammocks (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 617). This 

24 species was documented south of the CFBC in the corridor proposed for the 500-kV line that 

25 would extend from the LNP site to the Citrus substation. Preferred habitat for longspurred mint, 

26 a Federal and State endangered species, is sand pine forest (FLUCFCS 413) and scrub oak 

27 (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 421). The detection area for this species lies within the 

28 eastern portion of the corridor proposed for the 500-kV line that would extend from the LNP site 

29 to the Central Florida South substation. Coastal mock vervain, a State endangered species, 

30 occurs in back dunes, dune swale, and coastal hammock habitats (generally corresponding to 

31 FLUCFCS 322, 425, 427 and 432). Coastal mock vervain was documented within the corridor 

32 for the blowdown pipeline between the makeup-water intake structure and the CREC. One 

33 record is also known from corridors past the first transmission substations for the giant orchid 

34 (Pteroglossaspis ecristata). Giant orchid, a State threatened species, occurs in sandhill 

35 (generally corresponding to FLUCFCS 412 and 421), scrub (generally corresponding to 

36 FLUCFCS 413), pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS 411), and pine rocklands habitats (do not occur in 

37 region of the Levy site or transmission lines). The detection area of this species lies within the 

38 corridor proposed for the 230-kV line that would extend from the Kathleen substation to the 

39 Lake Tarpon substation. Considering the linear extent of the associated facilities corridors and 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-85 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 the variety of habitats through which they pass, it is possible that other listed plant species may 

2 be present within the associated offsite corridors. 

3 Other Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats 

4 No unique or rare habitats, or habitats with priority for protection (other than the wetlands that 

5 are discussed in Section 2.4.1.2) are identified for the associated offsite facilities corridors (PEF 

6 2008a, 2009a; Golder Associates 2008). However, because of the linear extent of the 

7 associated facilities, there are a number of wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, and preserves that lie 

8 near or are crossed by the corridors. Corridors extending from the LNP site to first substations 

9 traverse through the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross-Florida Greenway, two State forests 

10 (Withlacoochee State Forest and Ross Prairie State Forest), the Halpata Tastanaki Preserve, 

11 and one OFW (Withlacoochee River, crossed three times). Other sanctuaries and preserves lie 

12 nearby, including the Goethe State Forest, Crystal River State Buffer Preserve, Potts Preserve, 

13 Gum Slough Conservation Easement, Lake Panasoffkee (OFW), and Flat Island Preserve. 

14 Corridors extending beyond the first substations traverse through the Withlacoochee State 

15 Forest, Chassahowitzka Wildlife Management Area, Annutteliga Hammock State Park, four 

16 OFWs (Blackwater Creek, Hillsborough River, Trout Creek, Cypress Creek), seven SWFWMD 

17 lands (Upper Hillsborough Recreation Area, Lower Hillsborough Wilderness Park, Lower 

18 Hillsborough Flood Detention Area, Morris Bridge Park, Trout Creek Park, Flatwoods Park, and 

19 Jefferson Road Equestrian Area Trail), and six county lands (Cone Ranch, Lake Park, Old Fort 

20 King Trail, Channel B Corridor, Rocky and Brushy Creek Greenway, and Northwest Preserve). 

21 Other sanctuaries and preserves lie nearby, including the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross-Florida 

22 Greenway, Crystal River State Buffer Preserve, Crystal River system (an OFW), Sand Hill Scout 

23 Reservation, Green Swamp Conservation Easement, Blackwater Creek Preserve, Hillsborough 

24 River State Park, Cypress Creek Preserve and Brooker Creek Preserve. 

25 Bald eagles, delisted under the Federal ESA but still Federally protected under the Bald and 

26 Golden Eagle Protection Act, are locally common throughout peninsular Florida, preferring 

27 coastal areas and inland waterways where fish, waterfowl, and other prey are plentiful 

28 (FNAI 2009). Bald eagles may occur along the associated offsite facilities corridors wherever 

29 suitable habitat is available, and may include resident nesting pairs and winter migrants. Within 

30 corridors up to the first substation, two bald eagle nests are documented between the LNP site 

31 and the CFBC, and another nest lies within one-half mile of the transmission-line corridor near 

32 the CREC (PEF 2008a, 2009a; Golder Associates 2008). No documented bald eagle nests are 

33 known within corridors beyond the first substation, although Golder Associates (2008) did 

34 observe two large raptor nests during site reconnaissance surveys that could possibly be used 

35 by bald eagles. However, three bald eagle nests lie within one-half mile of the transmission-line 

36 corridors, including one near the CREC (noted above) that also lies adjacent to a corridor up to 

37 the first substation (PEF 2008a; Golder Associates 2008). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-86 August 2010 

1 Whooping cranes, although rare, may occur within areas through which the associated offsite 

2 facilities corridors would pass. Substantial portions of the transmission-line corridors (including 

3 both corridors up to the first substation and corridors beyond the first substation) lie within the 

4 primary range of the nonmigratory Kissimmee Prairie population (RENEW/FWS 2007). The 

5 proposed 230-kV line extending from the CREC switchyard to the Brookridge substation would 

6 pass within 2 mi of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, the wintering site for the 

7 migratory whooping crane population. There are no occurrence records for whooping crane 

8 from the associated offsite facilities corridors (PEF 2008a; FFWCC 2009a), and no whooping 

9 cranes were observed during reconnaissance surveys conducted by PEF contractors (PEF 

10 2008a, 2009a; Golder Associates 2008). Nevertheless emergent wetlands, maintained 

11 grasslands and other suitable foraging habitats lie within these corridors. It is also possible that 

12 whooping cranes may cross these corridors during their seasonal migrations or normal range 

13 movements. 

14 Because of the numerous habitats through which the associated facilities corridors pass, a 

15 variety of recreationally valuable game species are expected to occur wherever suitable habitat 

16 is present. These include species associated with mixed forests, such as the gray squirrel and 

17 wild turkey; multicover users that prefer forest-grassland edge such as the white-tailed deer and 

18 mourning dove; species that thrive in early successional environments such as the northern 

19 bobwhite and eastern cottontail; freshwater marsh-associated species such as the common 

20 snipe (Gallinago gallinago) and common moorhen; and a variety of waterfowl whenever open 

21 water is present. The feral hog, a recreationally hunted species that is also considered a 

22 nuisance species, is expected to occur in mixed habitats along the corridors as well. Table 2-9 

23 presents a summary of the other important species that may occur on the associated offsite 

24 facilities corridors. Because landscapes associated with the corridors share similar habitats and 

25 levels of disturbance, these game species are expected to be equally common in corridors up to 

26 the first substations and corridors beyond the first substations. 

27 2.4.1.5 Terrestrial Monitoring 

28 PEF conducted terrestrial ecological baseline monitoring on the proposed 3105-ac LNP site 

29 between September 2006 and April 2009 (PEF 2009h). Pedestrian surveys were conducted to 

30 verify and map cover types, describe and delineate wetland boundaries, document the presence 

31 of wildlife and wildlife habitat, and identify areas that may support important terrestrial species 

32 and habitats. Targeted surveys for gopher tortoise were conducted on the LNP site in 2007 and 

33 gopher tortoise burrows were documented. No other listed species surveys meeting accepted 

34 State or Federal survey protocols were conducted on the LNP site. Pursuant to the PPSA, 

35 surveys following published protocols for all State-listed species (excluding plants) that may 

36 occur on the LNP site would be required prior to “clearing and construction” under a post37 certification condition imposed by the FDEP (2010a). Coordination with the FFWCC would be 

38 required to determine appropriate mitigation for any affected species. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-87 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Pedestrian and vehicular field reconnaissance was completed for accessible portions of 

2 corridors supporting the associated offsite facilities by PEF between October 2007 and January 

3 2008 (PEF 2008a, 2009a, h; Golder Associates 2008). These surveys were to characterize 

4 offsite corridor habitats, document species presence, and identify areas that may support 

5 important terrestrial species and habitats. Targeted surveys for gopher tortoise were conducted 

6 in portions of the corridor extending from the LNP site to the CFBC, particularly along the route 

7 for the heavy-haul road, the makeup-water pipeline, and the blowdown pipeline. No other listed 

8 species surveys meeting accepted State or Federal survey protocols were conducted. 

9 Wetlands were delineated for the corridor extending from the LNP site to the CFBC. Wetlands 

10 in the remaining associated facilities corridors were identified using the cover type mapping; no 

11 formal delineations were conducted. After the final rights-of-way for the associated offsite 

12 facilities are selected and acquired, PEF would be required to complete a more detailed 

13 assessment of terrestrial resources pursuant to the PPSA. This would include protocol surveys 

14 for all listed species (excluding plants) that may occur within the rights-of-way and the 

15 delineation of wetlands prior to “clearing and construction,” under a post-certification condition 

16 imposed by the FDEP (2010a). Coordination with the FFWCC would be required to determine 

17 appropriate mitigation for any affected species. 

18 There are no other known ecological or biological studies ongoing at the LNP site or the 

19 associated offsite facilities beyond those conducted in support of this project. 

20 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology 

21 This section describes the aquatic environment and biota in the vicinity of the LNP site and 

22 other areas likely to be affected by the construction, operation, or maintenance of proposed LNP 

23 Units 1 and 2. It describes the spatial and temporal distribution, abundance, life-history stages, 

24 and attributes of biotic assemblages on which the proposed action could have an impact, and it 

25 identifies “important” or irreplaceable aquatic natural resources and the location of sanctuaries 

26 and preserves that might be affected by the proposed action. 

27 The aquatic communities associated with the LNP site include the CFBC, the Withlacoochee 

28 River, and the Gulf of Mexico. The LNP site does not have any waterbodies adjacent to it, 

29 although it does have a few onsite permanent and temporal shallow ponds. The CFBC is 

30 located 3.2 mi to the south of the LNP site and extends 16.8 mi from Lake Rousseau at the 

31 Inglis Lock out into the Gulf of Mexico. 

32 There are no aquatic sanctuaries or preserves that could be affected by the proposed action. 

33 The nearest managed areas are the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve (FDEP 1988), St. 

34 Martins Marsh (FDEP 1987), and Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge (Buckingham 1989). 

35 Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve, which is managed by FDEP, is approximately 5 mi to 

36 the north along the Gulf Coast of Florida from the mouth of the CFBC, and extends up along the 

37 coast and up to 8 mi offshore to the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge to cover 945,000 ac. St. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-88 August 2010 

1 Martins Marsh, also managed by FDEP, encompasses 23,000 ac in the nearshore and offshore 

2 region due west of the city of Crystal River, 3.5 mi to the south of the CREC discharge location, 

3 and 6 mi to the south of the mouth of the CFBC. Both aquatic preserves were established to 

4 protect seagrass bed habitats, which provide nursery areas for finfish and shellfish, as well as 

5 foraging resources for local birds and aquatic vertebrates. The Crystal River National Wildlife 

6 Refuge is managed by the FWS and comprises the Kings Bay headwaters of Crystal River, 

7 which lie 10 mi inland from the mouth of Crystal River on the Gulf of Mexico. The Crystal River 

8 National Wildlife Refuge was designated to protect the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus 

9 latirostris) and its habitat. The CREC discharge into the Gulf of Mexico is approximately 2.5 mi 

10 south of the mouth of the CFBC (see Figure 2-18). 

11 

12 Figure 2-18. Location of Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC) Discharge Canal in Relation 

13 to the Gulf of Mexico (PEF 2009a) 

14 2.4.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity 

15 The potential for impacts from intake construction and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2

16 on aquatic biota would primarily affect organisms inhabiting the CBFC, the OWR below 

17 Rousseau Dam, and the CREC discharge area in the Gulf of Mexico. 

18 LNP Site 

19 Permanent wetlands and temporal shallow ponds on the LNP site may support small freshwater 

20 fish such as killifish, minnows, and mosquito fish. However, no fish were observed during site 

21 sampling events, and no known protected aquatic species were found in any of these 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-89 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 freshwater ponds. Ponds on the LNP site were examined visually for aquatic species. Due to 

2 the shallow or seasonal nature of these habitats, they were not observed to have active 

3 populations of aquatic species. Years of forest plantation activities on the LNP site potentially 

4 contributed to the lack of persistent aquatic communities in these resources (PEF 2009a). 

5 The Cross Florida Barge Canal 

6 In an effort to provide maritime navigation between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, 

7 construction of a 12-ft-deep by 150-ft-wide Florida cross-peninsular waterway began in the mid8 1930s (Noll and Tegeder 2003). Originally intended to be a 171 nautical mile canal, only 4 

9 percent was complete by 1965 due to lack of funding and congressional support for several 

10 decades. Continued local opposition and lack of government funding eventually prompted an 

11 injunction that halted the construction in 1971, leaving a western portion from the newly 

12 constructed Inglis Lock to the Gulf of Mexico and an eastern stretch forming Lake Ocklawaha 

13 between the St. Johns Lock and Rodman Dam. Official deauthorization for the barge canal 

14 came in 1991, and the Cross-Florida Greenway State Recreation and Conservation Area took 

15 over the former barge canal properties. In 1998, the canal and associated lands were renamed 

16 the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross-Florida Greenway and Conservation Area (Noll and Tegeder 

17 2003). The western section of the CFBC affiliated with the proposed action is the 7.4-mi stretch 

18 from Inglis Lock west to the Gulf of Mexico; it ranges in depth from 8.6 to 18.2 ft and in width 

19 from 207 to 262 ft. The Inglis Lock is no longer functional (FDEP 2005). The Lock allows some 

20 leakage of freshwater from Lake Rousseau into the CFBC. The Inglis Dam was built in 1909 to 

21 impound the Withlacoochee River to form 3700-ac Lake Rousseau. An approximately 1.5-mi 

22 portion of the historical downstream segment of the OWR below the dam still runs into the 

23 western CFBC below the Inglis Lock. A 1.7-mi channel was constructed upstream of the Inglis 

24 Lock that parallels the CFBC reconnecting Lake Rousseau waters with the downstream 11-mi 

25 portion of the Withlacoochee River, thus serving as a bypass around the CFBC. The western 

26 portion of the CFBC lies 8 mi to the south of the proposed LNP and is the preferred water 

27 source for providing LNP cooling water. Freshwater influence into the CFBC comes from 

28 seepage around the Inglis Lock, freshwater springs in the CFBC near the Inglis Lock, and 

29 discharge from Lake Rousseau over the Inglis Dam via the OWR to the CFBC. The water30 control structures near the LNP site are shown in Figure 2-9. 

31 The CFBC discharges into the Withlacoochee Bay estuary in the Gulf of Mexico and is 

32 influenced by tidal changes. Water-quality characteristics show a wedge of saltwater extending 

33 from the surface waters where the CFBC meets the Gulf of Mexico up towards the Inglis Lock 

34 where persistent salinities range from an average of 5.75 practical salinity scale (pss) units at 

35 the surface to 16.87 pss at a depth of 4 m, and salinities just outside the mouth of the CFBC in 

36 the Gulf of Mexico average 17.83 pss at the surface and 25.91 pss at 4 m (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

37 Sediment profiles for the CFBC within the 7.4 mi stretch from the Inglis Lock to the Gulf of 

38 Mexico are predominated by 49.2 to 60.7 percent silt, 17.1 percent sand, and 28.6 percent clay. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-90 August 2010 

1 Just outside the mouth of the CFBC, the sediment profile shifts dramatically to primarily sand 

2 (average 83 percent) as is common with nearshore estuarine habitat. Total organic carbon is 

3 highest near the Inglis Lock at 60,714 mg/kg and decreases to 7417 mg/kg at the offshore 

4 sampling station. Total dissolved solids and total suspended solids are lowest near the Inglis 

5 Lock and increase with increasing salinity out into the Gulf of Mexico. Likewise, dissolved 

6 oxygen is lowest near the bottom of the CFBC at the Inglis Lock and increases over the length 

7 of the CFBC to generally being higher and more uniform over depth at the offshore sampling 

8 locations (CH2M Hill 2009b). These metrics indicate a poor-quality aquatic habitat area near 

9 the Inglis Lock. 

10 Sampling along the extent of the CFBC was conducted from October 2007 through November 

11 2008 at stations 1 through 4 within the CFBC and nearshore Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2-19). The 

12 aquatic species that were identified from the sampling events are listed in Table 2-10, Table 

13 2-11, and Table 2-12. 

14 Shoreline handpicking for invertebrate organisms revealed dominant species at each of the 

15 three sampling station locations in the CFBC. Nearest the Inglis Lock, barnacle (Chthamalus 

16 fragilis) and false dark mussel (Mytilopsis leucophaeata) were the dominant species. At 

17 station 2 near the US-19 overpass, scorched mussel (Brachidontes exustus), false dark mussel, 

18 barnacle, mud crab (Panopeus herbstii), and acorn barnacle (Balanus spp.) were dominant. 

19 Station 3 was dominated by green porcelain crab (Petrolisthes armatus), hooked mussel 

20 (Ischadium recurvum), mud crab, and acorn barnacle. Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) were 

21 also noted along the shoreline near the mouth of the CFBC at station 3 (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

22 Benthic invertebrates were collected using petite Ponar dredge, crab traps, trawls, and shoreline 

23 handpicking (PEF 2009a). Figure 2-19 shows the locations for aquatic species sampling in the 

24 CFBC. Benthic infauna were dominated by polychaete worms (75 percent of the mean total) 

25 with amphipods being the next abundant in collection across all sampling events and stations. 

26 Station 1 near the Inglis Lock had the lowest overall mean abundance and station 2 had the 

27 highest (CH2M Hill 2009b). Benthic species diversity is listed in Table 2-10. 

28 Motile macroinvertebrates were sampled by trawl and crab-trap in the CFBC in 

29 October/November 2007, December 2007, May 2008, and August 2008 (Table 2-11). Trawling 

30 resulted in blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), brief squid (Lolliguncula brevis), pink shrimp 

31 (Farfantepenaeus duorarum), and mud crab comprising the majority of the total catch at 

32 70 percent, with springtime sampling yielding the highest catch per unit effort (CPUE). 

33 Stations 3 and 2 had the highest overall abundances, and no macroinvertebrates were collected 

34 at station 1. Ten crab traps were baited and caught only blue crab with station 3 collecting the 

35 highest abundance (CH2M Hill 2009b). 
August 2010 2-91 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-19. Aquatic Sampling Locations in the CFBC and OWR (CH2M Hill 2009b) 2 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-92 August 2010 

1 Table 2-10. Benthic Invertebrate Diversity for the CFBC, OWR, and CREC Sampling Events 

Taxon Group 

Mean Abundance (number of individuals/m2

) 

CFBC 1 CFBC 2 CFBC 3 CFBC 4 OWR 8 OWR 9 OWR 10 CREC 3 CREC 4

Echinodermata 0 0 14 79 0 0 0 22 57 

Chaetognatha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 

Phoronida 0 0 0 301 0 0 0 0 7 

Nemertea 0 0 50 129 0 57 0 50 43 

Sipuncula 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 36 29 

Hirudinea 0 0 0 0 14 0 531 0 0 

Oligochaeta 0 7 1353 671 0 0 20,007 201 509 

Polychaeta 43 13,455 5134 6336 1105 1005 172 10,986 7090 

Gastropoda 7 36 22 176 57 531 144 151 301 

Bivalvia 0 43 50 377 631 603 388 50 639 

Aplacophora 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 

Platyhelminthes 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 14 

Decapoda 4 43 83 68 0 0 0 22 144 

Amphipoda 0 380 18 657 115 301 1579 244 222 

Cumacea 0 47 416 97 0 0 0 0 22 

Isopoda 0 0 0 14 0 0 517 14 29 

Mysida 0 0 7 22 0 0 0 7 65 

Tanaidacea 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 100 0 

Sessilia 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 

Diptera 0 0 0 4 5009 531 4736 0 0 

Hemiptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 

Trichoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 

Cnidaria 0 4 7 32 0 0 0 129 7 

Porifera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 7 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009b. 

2 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-93 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-11. Motile Macroinvertebrates Sampled in the CFBC and CREC with Catch per Unit 

2 Effort (CPUE) >1.0 from October 2007 Through November 2008 by Trawl and 

3 Crab Trap 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Total Catch Per Unit Effort Across 

Trawl and (Crab Trap) for All Sampling Events 

CFBC 1 CFBC 2 CFBC 3 CFBC 4 CREC 3 CREC 4

Jellyfish Cyaneidae - 1.5 - - - - 

Common eastern nassa Nassarius vibex - - - - - 1.5 

Atlantic brief squid Lolliguncula brevis - - 5 - - 2 

Palaemonid shrimp Palaemonidae - - - - - 1.5 

Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum - 1.5 2.5 - - 5.5 

Hippolyte shrimp Hippolyte sp. - - - - - 1.5 

Decorator crab Stenocionops furcata - - - - - 2 

Yellowline arrow crab Stenorhynchus seticornus - - - - - 7 

Hermit crab spp. Pagurus spp. - - - 3 - - 

Mud crab Xanthidae - - - 3.5 3 - 

Florida stone crab Menippe mercenaria - - - - (3.6) 2 (1.6) 

Portunid crab Portunus sp. - - - - - 1.5 

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus - 4.5 (2.5) 4 (4.3) - - - 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009b.

4 Table 2-12. Fish Species Sampled in the CFBC, OWR, and CREC with CPUE >1.0 from 

5 October 2007 Through November 2008 by Beach Seine, Trawl, Cast Net, Gill Net, 

6 and Minnow Trap 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Total Number Collected Across All Sampling Gear and Events

CFBC 

1 

CFBC 

2 

CFBC 

3 

CFBC 

4 

OWR 

8 

OWR 

9 

OWR 

10 

CREC 

3 

CREC 

4 

Spinner shark Carcharhinus brevipinna - - - - - - - 4 1 

Blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus - - - - - - - - 7 

Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas - 8 - - - - - 1 - 

Bonnethead 

shark 

Sphyrna tiburo - - - 2 - - - - 1 

Cownose ray Rhinoptera bonasus - - 1 - - - - - 3 

Spotted eagle 

ray 

Aetobatus narinari - - - - - - - 2 1 

Atlantic stingray Dasyatis sabina - 1 - 2 - - - 1 1 

Southern 

stingray 

Dasyatis americana - - - 2 - - - - 1 

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 2 - 1 3 - - - - 1 

7 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-94 August 2010 

1 

Table 2-12. (contd)

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

Total Number Collected Across All Sampling Gear and Events

CFBC 

1 

CFBC 

2 

CFBC 

3 

CFBC 

4 

OWR 

8 

OWR 

9 

OWR 

10 

CREC 

3 

CREC 

4 

Tidewater 

silverside 

Menidia peninsulae - - - - - - - 113 - 

Inland silverside Menidia beryllina - - - - 7 - 4 - - 

Halfbeaks Hemiramphidae - - - - - - - 10 - 

Atlantic 

needlefish 

Strongylura marina 7 2 9 3 - - - 2 1 

Redfin 

needlefish 

Strongylura notata notata 2 - 4 - - - - 3 - 

Killifishes Fundulus spp. - - - - - - - 60 - 

Seminole 

killifish 

Fundulus seminolis - - - - - - 22 - - 

Bluefin killifish Lucania goodei - - - - - - 97 - - 

Goldspotted 

killifish 

Floridichthys carpio 7 - - - - - - 285 - 

Mullets Mugilidae - 9 30 - - - - - - 

Striped (black) 

mullet 

Mugil cephalus 8 6 24 35 - - - 21 9 

White mullet Mugil curema 8 27 14 51 - - - 36 1 

Atlantic 

spadefish 

Chaetodipterus faber - - 2 - - - - 2 3 

Gobys Gobiidae 4 20 13 7 - - - 1 2 

Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus - 4 2 - - - - - - 

Sunfishes Centrarchidae 4 - - 1 - 1 4 - - 

Largemouth 

bass 

Micropterus salmoides 1 - - - 1 5 17 - - 

Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura - 95 398 246 - - - 1 149 

Common snook Centropomus undecimalis - 4 - - - - - 1 - 

Whitefin 

sharksucker 

Echeneis neucratoides - - 1 1 - - - - - 

Mojarras Gerreidae - - 8 - 3 - - 38 1 

Spotfin mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus 198 290 125 37 4 - - 84 100 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-95 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table 2-12. (contd)

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

Total Number Collected Across All Sampling Gear and Events

CFBC 

1 

CFBC 

2 

CFBC 

3 

CFBC 

4 

OWR 

8 

OWR 

9 

OWR 

10 

CREC 

3 

CREC 

4 

Polka-dot 

batfish 

Ogcocephalus cubifrons - - - 4 - - - - 2 

Grunts Haemulidae - - 2 1 - - - - - 

Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera - 2 6 11 - - - 3 28 

Snappers Lutjanidae 8 20 14 - - - - 5 2 

Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus - 8 2 1 - - - - 2 

Black drum Pogonias cromis 4 13 - 1 - - - 11 1 

Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus 2 1 - - - - - 1 1 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus - 17 - 17 - - - - 3 

Sand seatrout Cynoscion arenarius - 23 16 12 - - - - 4 

Spotted 

seatrout 

Cynoscion nebulosus - - - - - - - - 5 

Spanish 

mackerel 

Scomberomorus maculatus - - 2 4 - - - 5 

Atlantic bumper Chloroscombrus chrysurus - 6 4 24 - - - - 29 

Leatherjacket Oligoplites saurus - - 1 1 - - - 4 - 

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 100 706 704 125 1 2 - - 1 

Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 2 4 3 - - - - - - 

Atlantic thread 

herring 

Opisthonema oglinum - - 2 2 - - - - 10 

Herrings Clupeidae 4 - - - - - - - - 

Ladyfish Elops saurus 9 15 24 6 - - - - 1 

Gulf menhaden Brevoortia patronus 591 73 9 226 - - - - - 

Yellowfin 

menhaden 

Brevoortia smithi - 1 3 - - - - - 17 

Scaled sardine Harengula jaguana 24 41 47 21 1 - - - - 

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 13 54 61 26 2 - - 2 91 

Sheepshead Archosargus 

probatocephalus 

9 6 - - 1 1 - 63 2 

Southern 

kingfish 

Menticirrhus americanus - - 1 6 - - - - - 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-96 August 2010 

Table 2-12. (contd)

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

Total Number Collected Across All Sampling Gear and Events

CFBC 

1 

CFBC 

2 

CFBC 

3 

CFBC 

4 

OWR 

8 

OWR 

9 

OWR 

10 

CREC 

3 

CREC 

4 

Crevalle jack Caranx hippos - 2 - - - - - 1 1 

Blue runner Caranx crysos - - - - - - - - 4 

Hardhead 

catfish 

Ariopsis felis - 5 18 33 - - - 6 11 

Gafftopsail 

catfish 

Bagre marinus 2 2 2 - - - - - 5 

Flounders Paralichthyidae - 1 2 6 - - - - 1 

Pufferfish Spheroides spp. - 1 1 - - - - - 1 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009b. 

1 Plankton tows were used to measure the holoplankton, meroplankton, and ichthyoplankton 

2 abundance at stations 1–4 along the CFBC. Total zooplankton abundances increased from 

3 station 1 near the Inglis Lock to station 4 outside the mouth of the CFBC for both nighttime and 

4 daytime collections, with significantly higher abundances in the spring (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

5 Holoplankton (dominated by mud crab larvae and copepods) made up the largest fraction of all 

6 zooplankton at 60 percent total abundance. Station 1 had significantly less abundance than 

7 stations 2 through 4 where holoplankton were more abundant at night. Meroplankton 

8 (dominated by Panopeidae crab larvae) represented 38 percent of all zooplankton and had 

9 higher abundances in the spring. Meroplankton abundance decreased from the Inglis Lock to 

10 the Gulf of Mexico during the day, but was more variable at night. Ichthyoplankton made up 

11 only 2 percent of the total abundance. Significant differences were observed between 

12 stationsfor eggs, but larval abundances accounted for the higher abundances at station 4. 

13 Anchovy eggs were dominant with 97 percent of all eggs collected during the day and 

14 75 percent during the night. Gobiidae and Engraulidae species accounted for 88 percent of the 

15 mean total for larval species collected. Ichthyoplankton was most abundant at the offshore 

16 station 4. 

17 Fish species were collected from the CFBC using beach seines, gill nets with varying mesh 

18 sizes, baited minnow traps, radius cast nets, and otter trawls pulled within 1 mi of the station 

19 location. Results from fish sampling are listed in Table 2-12 by collection location. Represented 

20 species are listed if the CPUE was greater than 1.0 or the species was caught in more than one 

21 location. CPUE is a measure of the density or population size of the fish species. Large 

22 CPUEs indicate large populations because many individuals are caught for every unit of fishing 

23 effort. Beach seining was conducted in October/November 2007, December 2007, June 2008, 

24 and August/September 2008 for stations 1, 2, and 3. Overall abundances were highest at 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-97 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 station 1, closest to the proposed intake, predominantly due to large numbers of menhaden and 

2 bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) collected during the June 2008 sampling event. Other dominant 

3 species caught by beach seine included spotfin mojarra (Eucinostomus argenteus) (CH2M Hill 

4 2009b). 

5 Gill-net sampling with variable mesh sizes of 1 in. to 6 in. was performed for all four stations in 

6 October 2007, December 2007, June 2008, and August 2008. Scaled sardine (Harengula 

7 jaguana) was the most abundant fish caught during all four sampling events, with spotfin 

8 mojarra and ladyfish (Elops saurus) combining to account for 77 percent of the total catch. 

9 Station 3 had the highest abundances and station 1 had the lowest (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

10 Ten minnow traps were baited for sampling performed in October/November 2007, 

11 December 2007, May/June 2008, and August 2008. Silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura) was the 

12 most abundant species caught with spotfin mojarra, several goby species, and pinfish (Lagodon 

13 rhomboides) collectively accounting for 93 percent of the total fish abundance. Seasonal 

14 differences were evident with the highest abundances occurring during the May 2008 sampling 

15 event. Station 1 had the highest catches and stations 3 and 4 had the lowest; however, over a 

16 year of sampling by minnow trap, a total of only 188 fish were collected (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

17 Cast nets were thrown between 40 and 50 times from a boat for sampling events occurring in 

18 October/November 2007, December 2007, May 2008, and August 2008. Gulf menhaden 

19 (Brevoortia patronus) were caught as the most abundant species with spotfin mojarra, white 

20 mullet (Mugil curema), pinfish, striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and scaled sardine other 

21 abundant species caught during sampling. Fall and winter sampling had the highest CPUE with 

22 station 4 yielding overall highest numbers, followed by station 3 and stations 1 and 2 having the 

23 least (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

24 Trawling was performed to examine the presence of demersal species in October 2007, 

25 December 2007, May 2008, and August 2008. Bay anchovy and silver perch were the most 

26 abundant fish caught, representing 81 percent of the total CPUE. Other abundant species 

27 included spotfin mojarra, pinfish, and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus). As with cast netting, the fall 

28 and winter sampling events yielded the greatest CPUE, and station 2 had the highest 

29 abundances (CPUE 744), followed closely by stations 3 and 4, while station 1 had significantly 

30 less (6) (CH2M Hill 2009b).

31 Overall, the results of fish, plankton, and macroinvertebrate sampling in the CFBC indicate a 

32 biologically diverse and dynamic aquatic community at the offshore and nearshore stations 4 

33 and 3, respectively (see Table 2-10, Table 2-11, and Table 2-12). Station 2 in the CFBC near 

34 the US-19 overpass appears to have a unique community made up of large numbers of 

35 polychaete worms and highly predatory fish. Station 1 near the Inglis Lock has a less 

36 biodiverse community, but still has appreciable numbers of sediment-dwelling invertebrates and 

37 collections of pelagic species that use the fresher water habitat on a seasonal basis (CH2M Hill 

38 2009b). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-98 August 2010 

1 Old Withlacoochee River 

2 The OWR, which flows from below the Inglis Dam into the CFBC, is approximately 1.5 mi in 

3 length, and varies in width from 20 to 30 m across. The flow within the OWR is variable 

4 primarily due to weather patterns and the need to control Lake Rousseau water levels during 

5 rain events by spill over the Inglis Dam into the OWR. The periodic higher flows have led to 

6 scouring of the bottom habitat down to bedrock in the center of the OWR, and the sediments 

7 along the sides are primarily sand mixed with organic materials (CH2M Hill 2009b). Salinity 

8 profiles in this remnant arm of the Withlacooche River range from 0.14 pss below the Inglis Dam 

9 to 4.38 pss at the 1-m depth where the OWR joins with the CFBC. Sampling was conducted at 

10 the junction of the OWR with the CFBC (station 8), halfway between the junction and the Inglis 

11 Dam (station 9), and just downstream of the Inglis Dam (station 10) within this portion of the 

12 OWR in June and August 2008 (CH2M Hill 2009b). Analytical chemistry analysis of water 

13 samples show no significant differences in ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, total nitrogen, 

14 organophosphate, total phosphate, chlorophyll a, or total suspended solids between the three 

15 sampling stations for the June sampling event. Dissolved oxygen was highest near Inglis Dam 

16 following a high-volume water release during the August sampling, which also significantly 

17 lowered the nitrate/nitrite concentration (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

18 Biological sampling in the OWR was performed using beach seine, cast net, minnow trap, and 

19 crab traps. Gill nets and trawling were not used because manatees were present in the river. 

20 Crab traps yielded only two crustaceans and were not considered further in biological analyses. 

21 Fish caught near the Inglis Dam were representative of fish species that prefer freshwater 

22 conditions with killifish and bass representing the abundant species at that location. In a similar 

23 fashion, fish caught near the junction of the OWR and the CFBC were represented by silverside 

24 and mojarra species, which were also caught in the CFBC and prefer more saline environments. 

25 The midway location for sampling did not yield as many species as either of the other locations 

26 and may be due to the variable salinity conditions for that region. Benthic macroinvertebrate 

27 sampling mirrored the fish sampling results with euryhaline dipteran species predominant at the 

28 CFBC-OWR junction station, freshwater oligochaetes and amphipods at the Inglis Dam station, 

29 and a paucity of organisms and limited diversity at the midpoint station (Table 2-10 and 

30 Table 2-12) (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

31 Crystal Bay 

32 Crystal Bay in the Gulf of Mexico is the current site for the CREC discharge structure that 

33 discharges 1897.9 to 1613 Mgd of water used for cooling one nuclear and four fossil-fuel power 

34 plants. A 1.6-mi-long and 10-ft-deep discharge canal carries CREC discharge to the bay, which 

35 is immediately bordered along the south side by a spoil bank and continues an additional 1.2 mi 

36 into the bay (see Figure 2-18). 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-99 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Aquatic species and habitats associated with the discharge from CREC have been 

2 characterized historically from CREC operations (Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation 

3 1985), and were again sampled from April through November 2008. The extent of seagrass 

4 beds has been surveyed beginning in the early 1990s as a part of quantifying recovery of the 

5 CREC offshore Gulf of Mexico habitats following installation of helper cooling towers (MML 

6 1993, 1994, 1995). Previously affected seagrass areas nearest the CREC discharge were 

7 observed to recover with 50-percent bottom coverage by colonization by shoal grass (Halodule 

8 wrightii), a dominant, quick-growing seagrass. However, between 1995 and 2001, overall 

9 seagrass abundance declined, likely from a number of environmental influences such as 

10 turbidity, salinity, and storm events (Marshall 2001). 

11 Sediments at the CREC point of discharge (station 3) and in nearshore waters (station 4, 1.4 mi 

12 from point of discharge) are dominated by sand and silt (Figure 2-20). Surface salinities at the 

13 discharge mouth and nearshore waters ranged between 28.2 and 31.5 pss, with salinities 

14 increasing slightly at increasing depths (CH2M Hill 2009b). Average dissolved oxygen generally 

15 decreases along the CREC discharge canal from the discharge origin at 6.28 mg/L to 5.05 mg/L 

16 at the point of discharge into Crystal Bay. Average dissolved oxygen then increases to 

17 5.61 mg/L in nearshore waters surrounding the point of discharge. Average temperatures at the 

18 point of discharge (31.9°C) were 6°C higher than average temperatures recorded 1.4 mi away in 

19 nearshore waters during the 2008 sampling events (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

20 Analytical chemistry analysis of water samples taken in September and November 2008 show 

21 no significant differences in total organic carbon, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, 

22 total nitrogen, organophosphate, total phosphate, chlorophyll a, or total suspended solids 

23 between the point of discharge and 1.4 mi away in nearshore waters. 

24 Biological sampling at stations 3 and 4 was conducted at multiple time points from April to 

25 November 2008. Methods similar to those described for sampling the CFBC were used for 

26 sampling the CREC discharge area. Benthic infauna were dominated by polychaete worms, 

27 which composed 85 percent of the mean total and 40 percent of the species for both stations. 

28 Total density of infauna collected was highest at station 3 during the April sampling, but became 

29 higher at station 4 during the November sampling primarily due to increased abundances of 

30 gastropods and polychaetes (CH2M Hill 2009b). Motile macroinvertebrates were collected by 

31 trawl and crab-trap methods and indicated a greater abundance of stone crabs (Menippe 

32 mercenaria) (84 percent) over blue crabs (15 percent) and a greater overall abundance at 

33 station 4 versus station 3 (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

34 Sampling for zooplankton was carried out as described for the CFBC sampling. Unlike results 

35 in the CFBC, meroplankton were the most abundant of zooplankton collected, making up 

36 67 percent of total mean abundance compared with 32 percent for holoplankton and 1 percent 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-100 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-20. Aquatic Sampling Locations for CREC (CH2M Hill 2009b) 2 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-101 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 for ichthyoplankton. Meroplankton abundance increased with distance from the CREC 

2 discharge area and was highest in the spring. Panopeidae crab larvae were the most prevalent 

3 organisms at both stations, with overall abundance being higher at station 4. Holoplankton were 

4 dominated by copepods, with highest abundances observed in the spring and with distance 

5 from the CREC discharge. Ichthyoplankton also increased in abundance with distance from the 

6 discharge area, were most abundant in the spring, and were dominated by Gobiidae and 

7 Engraulidae larvae (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

8 Fish sampling was performed as described earlier for the CFBC sampling events and presented 

9 in Table 2-12. Beach seines were used only at station 3 given the proximity to shoreline 

10 access. Sampling was performed in May 2008, July 2008, August/September 2008, and 

11 November 2008. Killifishes accounted for 60 percent, mojarras 18 percent, 

12 silversides13 percent, and sheephead (Archosargus probatocephalus) 6 percent of the total 

13 catch. Abundances increased steadily from the June sampling event of 49 CPUE to 104 CPUE 

14 in the November sampling event (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

15 Gill nets were deployed at both CREC stations in May 2008, June 2008, August/September 

16 2008, and November 2008. Seasonal diversity was apparent in that yellowfin menhaden 

17 (Brevoortia smithi) was the most abundant species caught, but was only collected during the 

18 November 2008 sampling event. Black drum (Pogonias cromis), Atlantic thread herring 

19 (Opisthonema oglinum), and pinfish were the next most abundant fish species collected. Spring 

20 and early summer sampling yielded low numbers, but late summer and fall collections increased 

21 dramatically. Total abundance between the two stations was relatively equal with the exception 

22 of the November 2008 sampling event, which had almost four times the abundance caught at 

23 station 4 versus station 3 (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

24 As with CFBC sampling, 10 minnow traps were used at CREC stations 3 and 4 in May, June, 

25 September, and November 2008. Pinfish and pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera) were the most 

26 common species collected at 62 percent of the total catch. Spring sampling events had the 

27 highest CPUE compared to the rest of the sampling events, with no differences observed 

28 between the two stations. 

29 Cast-net sampling was conducted in April, June, August, and November 2008 at both CREC 

30 stations 3 and 4. Mullet species (white and striped) accounted for 59 percent of the total catch; 

31 however, both stations had overall low CPUE throughout the sampling events, with station 3 

32 having marginally greater abundance than station 4 (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

33 Trawling events in April, June, August, and November 2008 at both CREC stations 3 and 4 

34 indicated dominance of silver perch, pinfish, and spotfin mojarra with 79 percent of the total 

35 catch combined. Total CPUE peaked in August, and the highest abundances and diversity 

36 were collected at station 4 (CH2M Hill 2009b). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-102 August 2010 

1 Fish, plankton, and macroinvertebrate sampling results in the CREC discharge area of Crystal 

2 Bay are indicative of coastal salt marsh and nearshore species, and show biodiversity 

3 commensurate with similar habitat sampling at CFBC stations 3 and 4 (Table 2-10, Table 2-11, 

4 and Table 2-12). However, several of the top forage fish species were notably absent (bay 

5 anchovy, scaled sardine, and silver perch) from the CREC discharge stations. 

6 Non-Native and Nuisance Species 

7 No aquatic plant species known to be invasive or nuisance species have been observed in the 

8 CFBC. The green porcelain crab was observed during handpicking sampling near station 3 in 

9 the CFBC and is an invasive species in the Gulf of Mexico (Ray 2005). Sampling at station 1 

10 near the proposed intake in the CFBC indicated an abundance of the false dark mussel and 

11 barnacles, both of which are native potential biofouling species that would associate with CWISs 

12 (PEF 2009a). 

13 2.4.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines 

14 This section describes commercial, recreational, important, Federally and State-listed 

15 threatened, endangered, species of concern, nuisance or invasive species, and designated 

16 critical habitats known to occur in or in the vicinity of the transmission-line corridors proposed to 

17 connect the LNP switchyard to the PEF electrical grid. Four 500-kV transmission lines are 

18 proposed to run adjacent to or within the existing maintained transmission-line corridors for the 

19 CREC that run to the proposed Citrus substation, Central Florida South substation, and the 

20 CREC 500-kV switchyard, as described in Section 2.2.2 and shown in Figure 2-5. 

21 New corridor segments would be necessary to connect the LNP site to the existing corridors. 

22 Connection to the Citrus substation corridor would require clearing within a 7-mi-long and a 

23 1-mi-wide corridor extending from the southern boundary of the LNP site, which would cross the 

24 Withlacoochee River bypass channel, CFBC, and the OWR. The existing corridor and new 

25 corridor extending to the proposed Central Florida South substation would cross the 

26 Withlacoochee River at the border of Citrus and Marion Counties and Two-Mile Prairie Lake 

27 (PEF 2009a). Connection of the CREC switchyard to the new Citrus substation would cross 

28 existing corridors over estuarine habitat within Crystal Bay. The existing and proposed 

29 transmission-line corridors do not cross any designated aquatic critical habitats. 

30 Beyond First Substations 

31 Additional transmission lines extending beyond the first substations to the electrical grid would 

32 also be required (Figure 2-5). Two 230-kV lines would extend from the Citrus substation to the 

33 existing Crystal River East substation, a 230-kV line would extend from the CREC switchyard to 

34 the Brookridge substation, another 230-kV line would extend from the Brookridge substation to 

35 the Brooksville West substation, and the last 230-kV line would extend from the existing 

36 Kathleen substation to the Griffin substation and then beyond to the Lake Tarpon substation. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-103 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Two additional 69-kV lines would be required to support construction at the LNP site and would 

2 connect to existing 69-kV lines from the western and the southern boundaries of the LNP site 

3 (PEF 2009k). 

4 Corridor segments beyond the first substations include 38 mi of mostly existing corridor from the 

5 CREC switchyard to the existing Brookridge substation. Another 3 mi of existing corridor 

6 extends from the Brookridge substation to the Brooksville West substation. Although a specific 

7 location for the proposed Citrus substation has not yet been finalized, connection to the existing 

8 Crystal River East substation would require a new corridor less than 2.7 mi long and 1 mi wide. 

9 Existing corridors are proposed for the transmission lines extending 50 mi from the Kathleen 

10 substation to the Griffin substation, and extending west to the Lake Tarpon substation. This 

11 corridor crosses the following OFWs: Blackwater Creek, Trout Creek, the Hillsborough River, 

12 and Cypress Creek (PEF 2009k). Other waterbodies include Flint Creek, tributaries of 

13 Hollomans Branch, Brushy Creek, Rocky Creek, and numerous unnamed intermittent and 

14 perennial tributaries of the previously named waterbodies. The existing and proposed 

15 transmission-line corridors do not cross any designated aquatic critical habitats. 

16 2.4.2.3 Aquatic Species and Habitats 

17 Important Species and Habitats 

18 Important species include those that are commercially and recreationally important species; 

19 Federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species; and those species listed by the 

20 State of Florida as threatened, endangered, or species of concern that could be affected by 

21 plant construction, preconstruction or operational activities. Species that are essential to the 

22 maintenance or survival of the above species or critical to the structure and function of the 

23 aquatic ecosystem are also included. 

24 Commercial Species 

25 Commercial fisheries allowed in the Gulf of Mexico in offshore Florida waters for Citrus and 

26 Levy Counties include black mullet (Mugil cephalus), red grouper (Epinephelus morio), crevalle 

27 jack (Caranx hippos), ladyfish (Elops saurus), black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), gag 

28 grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis), grunts (family Haemulidae), porgies (family Sparidae), pink 

29 shrimp, blue crab, stone crab, and oysters (FFWCC 2009g). All of these species are also 

30 considered recreationally important. 

31 Black Mullet (Mugil cephalus) 

32 The black mullet (also referred to as the striped mullet), is one of the most prevalent mullet 

33 species in the Gulf of Mexico, and it has a worldwide distribution in coastal and estuarine 

34 habitats (Futch 1966). Mullet move from inshore areas to offshore waters to spawn from 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-104 August 2010 

1 October to February. Larvae migrate inshore to grassy nursery habitat and reach commercial 

2 harvest size in 1 year. Black mullet feed primarily on detritus, small crustaceans, and plankton 

3 (Futch 1966). Fished for food and bait both recreationally and commercially, the commercial 

4 fishery for black mullet was over 7 million pounds in 2004, primarily harvested with cast nets 

5 and small seines due to a net ban in 1995 limiting large-haul seines and gill nets. Black mullet 

6 are most abundant off the central and southwestern coast of Florida with more than 74 percent 

7 of Florida west coast landings occurring from Tampa Bay to Charlotte Harbor (Mahmoudi 2005). 

8 Black mullet were identified at all four sampling stations of the CFBC and in heaviest numbers 

9 at station 4, closest to the Gulf of Mexico. Black mullet were also identified at the CREC 

10 sampling stations. 

11 Groupers

12 The red grouper, black grouper, and gag grouper represent some of the largest recreational and 

13 commercially important fishes found in Gulf of Mexico waters. Each of these three grouper 

14 species may reach up to 3 ft in length and is sought after for human consumption. Spawning 

15 seasons vary, with red grouper spawning in mid spring, gag grouper in winter, and black 

16 grouper throughout the year. Juveniles inhabit rocky-bottom or nearshore coastal-reef and 

17 seagrass habitats and feed on fish and crustaceans for about 3 years before moving offshore. 

18 Adult maturity is attained at about 4 to 6 years, and adults are primarily ambush predators. 

19 Grouper species are a managed fishery for both commercial and recreational takes using bag 

20 and size limits. Commercial fishing occurs by longline while recreational fishing is accomplished 

21 by hook and line (FFWCC 2007a). Over 80 percent of landings (almost 8 million pounds) in 

22 2005 for red grouper were commercial with 99 percent coming from the Gulf Coast. Red 

23 grouper are managed under Section 303 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

24 Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSFCMA) (FFWCC 2007a). Although no grouper 

25 adults or juveniles were identified during any of the sampling at the CFBC or CREC stations, 

26 these fish are caught by recreational anglers in nearshore habitats such as those that occur 

27 near the CFBC and CREC. 

28 Crevalle Jack (Caranx hippos) 

29 Occurring along both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, crevalle jack are found as juveniles 

30 and small adults in estuarine habitats with high-to-moderate salinities. Adults move offshore 

31 and reach sexual maturity in 4 to 6 years. Spawning occurs offshore from April to June. 

32 Examination of stomach contents indicates crevalle jack feed primarily on other fish species. 

33 Over 1 million pounds were harvested in Florida in 2005, with over 68 percent coming from 

34 recreational fishing and 69 percent from the Atlantic coast (FFWCC 2006a). Crevalle jacks 

35 were identified at CFBC station 2 near the US-19 overpass and at offshore CREC station 4.
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-105 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Ladyfish (Elops saurus) 

2 The ladyfish is primarily a sportfish species, although a commercial fishery does exist in Florida. 

3 Larval and juvenile ladyfish seek out brackish nearshore habitats with salinities ranging between 

4 23 and 25 psu, as is seen for segments of the CFBC and the CREC discharge area. Adults 

5 also inhabit nearshore areas, but move offshore in the fall for spawning. Ladyfish feed on other 

6 fish species. Over 1 million pounds were caught in Florida waters in 2005, with 85 percent 

7 coming from commercial harvest and 96 percent in Gulf of Mexico waters (FFWCC 2006b). 

8 Ladyfish were identified at all four CFBC sampling stations and in highest numbers at station 3 

9 at the mouth of the CFBC and at offshore CREC station 4. 

10 Grunt Species

11 Grunt species such as the pigfish can inhabit nearshore seagrass beds and species like the 

12 white grunt (Haemulon plumieri) primarily occupy offshore habitats with moderate relief. Grunt 

13 species feed on benthic crustaceans, worms, crabs, and mollusks. Grunt juveniles are popular 

14 bait species. Commercial landings in 2005 were greatest along Florida’s Gulf Coast in Dixie 

15 and Pinellas Counties. Total landings for Florida in 2005 were over 2 million pounds, with 

16 83 percent coming from recreational fishing. White grunt and pigfish accounted for 89 percent 

17 of Florida Gulf Coast landings in 1995, with white grunt being more dominant (FFWCC 2006c). 

18 Pigfish were caught in the more downstream portions of the CFBC at stations 3 and 4 and at 

19 both CREC sampling stations. 

20 Porgie Species

21 Pinfish and sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) are the most abundant fish in the 

22 porgie family found in coastal and estuarine waters off Levy and Citrus Counties. These 

23 species inhabit a variety of estuarine and marine habitats and are harvested for bait and human 

24 consumption. Spawning takes place offshore in Florida Gulf Coast waters in February and 

25 March. Juveniles migrate to estuarine areas in spring and summer (Muncy 1984; FMNH 

26 2009a). Levy and Citrus Counties each estimated over 1000 lb of porgies caught in 2008 

27 (FFWCC 2009b). Pinfish were collected at all stations in the CFBC and CREC discharge area, 

28 while sheepshead were collected at the furthest upstream sampling stations 1 and 2 in the 

29 CFBC and at the point of discharge station 3 in the CREC. 

30 Pink Shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) 

31 Pink shrimp are abundant off of Florida’s Gulf Coast. As juveniles, pink shrimp inhabit grassy 

32 estuarine habitats before migrating to waters ranging from 35 to 120 ft deep as adults. 

33 Spawning occurs year-round, with peak spawning times in spring, summer, and fall at 13- to 

34 160-ft depths. In 2005, over 17 million pounds of shrimp species were caught in Florida waters; 

35 74 percent from Gulf of Mexico waters. Pink shrimp are primarily harvested off coastal regions 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-106 August 2010 

1 south of Tampa Bay, with white and brown shrimp the more dominant shrimp species harvested 

2 off the northwestern coast of Florida (FFWCC 2006d). Catch records for 2008 show over 

3 16,000 lb of brown shrimp harvested in Citrus County compared to 830 lb for pink shrimp. 

4 However, all three shrimp species are harvested in bulk for bait, and the total catch was 

5 substantially higher for Citrus County in 2008 with over 350,000 lb (FFWCC 2009b). Pink 

6 shrimp were collected at stations 2 and 3 in the CFBC and at offshore CREC station 4. 

7 Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) 

8 The blue crab is currently managed by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission for size 

9 minimums, gear configurations, and prohibition of exploitation of gravid females (Steele and 

10 Perry 1990). Commercial landings in 2006 for Florida exceeded 11 million pounds, with 

11 73 percent originating from the Gulf Coast (FFWCC 2007b). Reproduction occurs year-round in 

12 Florida waters, with peak spawning times occurring in lower salinity waters from March through 

13 July. Larvae are typically carried offshore and benthic juveniles return to shallow, estuarine and 

14 brackish waters (Murphy et al. 2007). Survival and reproduction are positively correlated with 

15 habitat quality (Guillory et al. 2001). Blue crab were collected at stations 2 and 3 in the CFBC, 

16 but were not evident in significant numbers for either CREC sampling station. 

17 Stone Crab

18 Two species of stone crab are known to exist along Florida’s Gulf Coast. Menippe adina, the 

19 Gulf stone crab, ranges along Florida’s northern Gulf coast to Texas, while Menippe 

20 mercenaria, or the Florida stone crab, is predominantly found in the Gulf of Mexico along the 

21 central and southwestern coast of Florida. The Florida stone crab is the predominant species 

22 along the coast of Citrus and Levy Counties. Spawning occurs from spring to fall, and larvae 

23 settle in nearshore coastal waters and estuaries. Adults migrate to seagrass beds or rocky 

24 substrate in more saline waters. The stone crab fishery is managed by a Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

25 Management Plan to regulate this renewable fishery with harvest only of claws greater than 

26 2.75 in. long. Live crabs are returned to the water to regenerate new claws. Additional 

27 management of the stone crab fishery includes a passive trap reduction program and prohibition 

28 of claw harvesting from gravid females (Muller et al. 2006). As one of the top five fisheries for 

29 Florida, 99 percent of stone crab harvest is made from the Florida stone crab (McMillen-Jackson 

30 et al. 2006). No stone crabs were collected in the CFBC, but they were present at both CREC 

31 stations sampled. 

32 Oysters

33 Eastern oysters require firm substrate for attachment and this is a limiting factor for settlement 

34 of this species. Found in a range of salinities, oysters require salinity conditions higher than 

35 10 psu for successful spawning, which can occur within as little as a month after settling. Most 

36 of the oyster harvest for Florida occurs in the panhandle and big bend regions in the Gulf of 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-107 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Mexico. Landings from 1982 to 1985 averaged 5 million pounds from the Gulf of Mexico, but 

2 have since dropped by as much as 60 percent, primarily due to destruction of habitat following 

3 hurricane Elena in 1995. The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission developed a regional 

4 management plan for the oyster fishery that includes construction and placement of culch reefs 

5 (artificial reefs made from shells of clam and oyster) to enhance habitat, gear and catch 

6 restrictions, and restoration of freshwater flows (FFWCC 2006e). Sampling activities were not 

7 designed to collect this species, but they are known to occur in the offshore oyster reef areas 

8 and were observed to line the shoreline of the CFBC near the mouth. 

9 Recreational Species 

10 In addition to the species discussed above under commercial species, the following recreational 

11 species are found in the vicinity of the CFBC and the CREC. 

12 Spotted Seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) 

13 The recreational fishery for spotted seatrout is primarily hook and line with regulations in Florida 

14 limiting size to between 15 and 20 in., except one fish per person may be over 20 in., and 

15 overall take is limited to 5 per person per day (FFWCC 2009c). The fishing season is closed in 

16 February, which coincides with the onset of spawning season. Juveniles migrate to seagrass 

17 beds although both juveniles and adults have been observed in channel habitats as well. Adults 

18 tolerate a wide range of salinities and feed on copepods, shrimp, and fish (Murphy et al. 2006). 

19 Spotted seatrout were collected at the offshore CREC station 4. 

20 Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) 

21 Angling for cobia is limited to one fish per harvester per day, with a minimum fork length of 

22 33 in. (FFWCC 2009c). Cobia spawn from May to September and overwinter in south Florida 

23 waters near the Florida Keys. Larvae migrate to brackish, coastal waters. Cobias dine on 

24 portunid crabs, fish, and squid (FFWCC 2006f). No cobias were observed during sampling 

25 activities in the CFBC or CREC. However, recreational angling in inland waters off Florida’s 

26 Gulf Coast indicate that this species may occur in these habitats (NMFS 2009a). 

27 Common Snook (Centropomus undecimalis) 

28 The common snook is one of the most popular of Florida sportfish. A specific snook permit is 

29 required for recreational fishing, with a bag limit of one per person per day and a slot limit of 

30 28 to 33 in. This fishery is closed from December through February and from May through 

31 August, which coincides with spawning season in the summer (FFWCC 2009c). Preferred 

32 spawning habitat has been identified at the mouth of coastal rivers and inlets. Snook tolerate a 

33 range of salinities with juveniles preferring less saline habitats associated with mangrove 

34 swamps, creeks, and even freshwater rivers with good water quality, pilings, rocks, or 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-108 August 2010 

1 mangroves for cover and overhanging vegetation. As snook mature, they move into more 

2 saline waters in lower estuary habitats (FFWCC 2009d). Snook were caught at station 2 in the 

3 CFBC, and a single snook was caught at the CREC station 3 near the point of discharge. 

4 Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) 

5 The red drum is another popular sportfish in Florida. Although there are no restrictions on time 

6 of year for fishing red drum, a limit of one fish per person per day between 18 and 27 in. is 

7 imposed (FFWCC 2009c). Red drums move to deep offshore waters to spawn in the fall and 

8 return to nearshore coastal and estuarine habitats where they spend most of their life cycle 

9 (FFWCC 2007c). Tidal currents move larvae to nearshore habitats, where they grow rapidly as 

10 juveniles during the first 2 years and associate with seagrass habitats with little wave action 

11 (Buckley 1984). Red drum were observed in the CFBC near the Inglis Lock and at the offshore 

12 CREC station 4. 

13 Flounder

14 Flounder caught in Gulf of Mexico waters associated with western Florida are primarily of the 

15 family Paralichthyidae. A size limit of 12 in. and bag limit of 10 per harvester per day are the 

16 only recreational fishing limitations (FFWCC 2009c). Flounder prefer sandy substrate and 

17 spawn in offshore waters deeper than 65 ft during the late fall and winter seasons. Larvae are 

18 moved inshore by tidal currents. Gulf flounder feed on benthic fish and crustaceans (FFWCC 

19 2006g). Several flounder species were caught at station 4 offshore of the CFBC and one was 

20 caught in Crystal Bay near the CREC discharge. 

21 Essential Species 

22 Several other species of interest, including the species listed below, occur near the LNP site 

23 and are essential species that are forage fish for many other species and provide critical links in 

24 the food web. Therefore, they are important species for Gulf of Mexico estuarine and marine 

25 ecosystems. 

26 Silver Perch (Bairdiella chrysoura) 

27 Silver perch is an abundant estuarine fish that serves as a prey species for numerous marine 

28 predators. Silver perch tolerate a wide range of salinities. Feeding predominantly on copepods 

29 as juveniles, the silver perch switches to mysid shrimp and other fish species as they mature 

30 (Waggy et al. 2007). Silver perch were abundant at all CFBC stations (except for station 1 near 

31 the Inglis Lock) and at the offshore CREC station 4.
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-109 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Spotfin Mojarra (Eucinostomus argenteus) 

2 Spotfin mojarra occur in estuarine habitats, primarily in seagrass beds. Based on recent 

3 sampling in the CFBC and CREC, this abundant, schooling fish serves as a forage food for 

4 many other fish species. Larvae and juveniles are found from December to June in 16 to 29°C 

5 waters with salinities ranging from 19 to 34 psu (Kerschner et al. 1985). Spotfin mojarra were 

6 abundant at all CFBC and CREC stations and were even observed at OWR station 8 near the 

7 CFBC. 

8 Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) 

9 Spot occupy estuarine and coastal habitats. Juveniles move closer to inshore habitats during 

10 the winter and move offshore in late fall as they mature and prepare for spawning activities. 

11 The diet of the juvenile and adult spot includes crustaceans, polychaetes, and mollusks 

12 (FFWCC 2006h). Spot were collected in the CFBC at stations 2 and 4, and at the offshore 

13 CREC station 4. 

14 Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) 

15 Common along both coasts of Florida, the bay anchovy is an abundant prey species that is also 

16 fished for human consumption. Bay anchovy occupy euryhaline, estuarine, and connected 

17 freshwater habitats and can tolerate relatively anoxic conditions in pollution-stressed areas. 

18 Spawning occurs in waters less than 20 ft deep during the spring and early summer along 

19 Florida’s Gulf Coast. Juveniles and adults feed primarily on zooplankton, small crustaceans, 

20 and detritus (Robinette 1983). Significant abundances of bay anchovy were observed in the 

21 CFBC at all stations. 

22 Rare Species 

23 Several fish and shark species are listed by the NMFS as species of concern within the Gulf of 

24 Mexico. The Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) is an anadromous species that forages as an 

25 adult in Gulf of Mexico waters, but does not enter any freshwater systems along the western 

26 coast of Florida (NMFS 2008a). Likewise, although both the saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus 

27 jenkinsi) and the ivory bush coral (Oculina varicosa) are species of concern for Florida, neither 

28 species occurs along the western coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico and they are not 

29 discussed further (NMFS 2007a; 2009e). 

30 Dusky Shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) 

31 The dusky shark can be found in habitats ranging from the surf zone to depths of over 1000 ft, 

32 but avoid estuarine environments with low salinities. Migrations are directed by temperature 

33 change moving northward up the western Atlantic in the summer and back down toward the 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-110 August 2010 

1 Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico in the fall (NMFS 2009f). During biological sampling activities for 

2 the LNP, no captures of dusky shark were reported. Due to habitat preference, the dusky shark 

3 is not expected to occur in any of the locations associated with the LNP site (CFBC, CREC, 

4 OWR) and will not be considered further. 

5 Largetooth Sawfish (Pristis perotteti) 

6 Closely resembling the Federally endangered smalltooth sawfish, the largetooth sawfish is 

7 considered extirpated in the United States. Once ranging from Texas to the tip of peninsular 

8 Florida in the Gulf of Mexico, the most recent sightings of this species were in the 1940s (NMFS 

9 2009g). During biological sampling activities for LNP, no captures of largetooth sawfish were 

10 reported. Due to lack of presence in U.S. waters, the largetooth sawfish is not expected to 

11 occur in any of the locations associated with the LNP site (CFBC, CREC, OWR) and will not be 

12 considered further. 

13 Night Shark (Carcharhinus signatus) 

14 The night shark is a deep-water shark occupying depths of 900 to 1200 ft during the day and up 

15 to 610 ft at night when it feeds on squid, shrimp, and small fish. Caught primarily on longlines, 

16 this species has been depleted as incidental takes while fishing for tuna and swordfish (NMFS 

17 2009h). During biological sampling activities for the LNP project, no captures of night shark 

18 were reported. Due to habitat preference, the night shark is not expected to occur in any of the 

19 locations associated with the LNP site (CFBC, CREC, OWR) and will not be considered further. 

20 Sand Tiger Shark (Carcharius taurus) 

21 Sand tiger sharks are found singly or in schools from surf zone down to 75-ft depths along the 

22 western Atlantic coast and throughout the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. This species is 

23 sometimes found in shallow coastal habitats and prefers to occupy the benthic zone where it 

24 feeds on rays, squids, crustaceans, and fish. Juveniles in particular are often found in estuarine 

25 environments. Like most large pelagic sharks, the sand tiger has a slow rate of maturation and 

26 may produce up to two pups every other year once females reach 7 to 10 years of age (NMFS 

27 2009i). No sand tiger sharks were collected during sampling activities in the CFBC, CREC, or 

28 OWR. There is one record of recreational catch off of Florida’s Gulf Coast in 2004, but not in 

29 any other year over the past decade (NMFS 2009b), so the sand tiger shark will not be 

30 considered further. 

31 Speckled Hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi) 

32 Adult speckled hind occupy 80- to 1300-ft depths characterized by rocky substrate, while 

33 juveniles prefer to stay in shallower waters. This species ranges from coastal North Carolina 

34 through the northern Caribbean and U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Speckled hind feed on fish, 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-111 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 crustaceans, and mollusks, and they spawn in aggregations from May to October (NMFS 

2 2009j). Although no speckled hind juveniles were observed during sampling activities in the 

3 CFBC, CREC, or OWR, habitat is present in the offshore areas for the juveniles of this species. 

4 Speckled hind have been caught recreationally in inland waters off Florida’s Gulf Coast (NMFS 

5 2009c). 

6 Warsaw Grouper (Epinephelus nigritus) 

7 Primarily a deep-water grouper, the warsaw grouper is found in waters 180 to 1700 ft deep with 

8 bottom relief. Juveniles may occupy more shallow reefs and reach maturity at 9 years of age. 

9 Little is known about spawning other than observations that spawning occurs primarily in August 

10 and September for Gulf of Mexico populations. Warsaw grouper feed on crustaceans and fish, 

11 and are found from coastal Massachusetts, through the northern Caribbean, and into the Gulf of 

12 Mexico (NMFS 2009k). During biological sampling activities for the LNP project, no captures of 

13 Warsaw grouper were reported. Warsaw grouper have been caught recreationally in inland 

14 waters off of Florida’s Gulf Coast (NMFS 2009d). 

15 Federally and State-Listed Species 

16 Federal and State-listed species include the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), finback whale 

17 (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), sei whale (Balaenoptera 

18 borealis), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus 

19 latirostris), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), 

20 leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), 

21 Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Suwannee cooter (Pseudemys concinna 

22 suwanniensis), gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), smalltooth sawfish (Pristis 

23 pectinata), elkhorn coral (Acropora palmate) and staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) and are 

24 also considered important species according to ESRP Section 2.4.2 (NRC 2000). Discussion of 

25 Federal and State-listed species are found in the following section and in Appendix F. 

26 This section describes the Federally and Florida State-listed proposed threatened and 

27 endangered aquatic species in the vicinity of the LNP site. Federally and State-listed aquatic 

28 species that may occur near the LNP site are listed in Table 2-13. No identified threatened and 

29 endangered aquatic species are located along the proposed transmission-line corridors. 

30 Whales

31 The distribution of endangered whales listed in Table 2-13 is worldwide. While there is no 

32 habitat used by these whales immediately offshore of the CFBC or the CREC discharge, the 

33 deepwater, eastern Gulf of Mexico may serve as a migratory corridor for finback whales that 

34 migrate toward the lower latitudes from subpolar waters during the winter to calve and then 

35 migrate back up the coast to higher latitudes during the summer (NMFS 2009l). Blue and 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-112 August 2010 

1 Table 2-13. Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species that are Endangered, Threatened, and 

2 Species of Concern 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status(a)

State 

Status(b)

Relevant Waters of 

Occurrence 

Mammals 

Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale FE Gulf of Mexico 

Balaenoptera physalus Finback whale FE Gulf of Mexico 

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale FE Gulf of Mexico 

Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale FE Gulf of Mexico 

Physeter macrocephalus Sperm whale FE Gulf of Mexico 

Trichechus manatus 

latirostris 

Florida manatee FE SE Gulf of Mexico/inland 

rivers 

Reptiles 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle FT ST Gulf of Mexico 

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FE SE Gulf of Mexico 

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE SE Gulf of Mexico 

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill sea turtle FE SE Gulf of Mexico 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtle 

FE SE Gulf of Mexico 

Pseudemys concinna 

suwanniensis 

Suwannee cooter SSC Estuarine/inland 

rivers from Alafia to 

Ochlockonee Rivers 

Fish 

Acipenser oxyrinchus 

desotoi

Gulf sturgeon FT SSC Gulf of Mexico/inland 

Rivers 

Pristis pectinata Smalltooth sawfish FE Gulf of Mexico 

Invertebrates 

Acropora palmata Elkhorn coral FT Gulf of Mexico 

Acropora cervicornis Staghorn coral FT Gulf of Mexico 

Sources: FWS 2008a; FFWCC 2008; NMFS 2008b 

(a) Federal status rankings determined by the FWS under the Endangered Species Act, FE = Federally 

Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened (FWS 2008a; NMFS 2008b). 

(b) State species information provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC 2008). 

SE = State of Florida Endangered; ST = State of Florida Threatened; SSC = State of Florida Species of Special 

Concern (FFWCC).

3 humpback whales are rare in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS 2009n, o). The exact movement 

4 patterns of sei and blue whales are largely unknown (NMFS 1998). Sperm whales are rare in 

5 waters less than 984 ft deep. Like most north Atlantic cetaceans, sperm whales migrate down 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-113 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 the western Atlantic coast in the winter to waters east and northeast of Cape Hatteras, North 

2 Carolina. The migration back to the north starts in the spring with a migration range extending 

3 from waters off the coast of Virginia up to the Northeast Channel area.Sightings of sperm 

4 whales in the Gulf of Mexico are rare (NMFS 2007b, c). The migration patterns and population 

5 structure of humpback whales in the North Atlantic are well known. Humpbacks migrate to 

6 Caribbean waters in the winter to calve and migrate up to waters off New England, Canada, and 

7 Greenland in the summer to feed (NMFS 2007c). Due to lack of suitable habitat in the vicinity of 

8 the LNP site, CFBC, and CREC these whale species are not considered further. 

9 Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) 

10 The Florida manatee tolerates a large salinity range, is found in freshwater environments like 

11 springs and rivers and in estuarine habitats, and has a year-round distribution associated with 

12 peninsular Florida. A long-lived marine mammal, manatees reach sexual maturity at 4 to 

13 7 years, and calve once every 3 years. These herbivores feed on a variety of submerged 

14 aquatic vegetation as well as floating and bank vegetation, and they seek out freshwater 

15 sources to drink (Smith 1993). In the winter, manatees migrate to warmer waters, which include 

16 power-plant thermal outfalls and four major artesian springs along both coasts of Florida (Laist 

17 and Reynolds 2005). Dispersion throughout coastal water habitats occurs during warmer 

18 months when water temperatures exceed 20°C, with ranges as far up the Atlantic coast as 

19 Massachusetts and as far west in the Gulf of Mexico as Texas (FWS 2008b). The Florida 

20 manatee northwest Florida population, which includes Citrus and Levy Counties, makes up 

21 approximately 12 percent of the total manatee population. Manatees were observed in the 

22 CREC discharge area, particularly during the November 2008 sampling events, which is typical 

23 for this species as it seeks out thermal refugia in the fall and winter months. Manatees were 

24 also observed year round in the CFBC and OWR (CH2M Hill 2009b). Further discussion of 

25 manatees and their occurrence near the LNP site and transmission lines and potential for 

26 impacts are presented in Appendix F as part of the biological assessment. 

27 Sea Turtles

28 Four species of sea turtle are listed as Federally and State endangered, with the loggerhead 

29 sea turtle listed at both Federal and State levels as threatened. All sea turtles have certain life30 history similarities in that females swim ashore to sandy beaches and deposit eggs in nesting 

31 pits that are covered to allow incubation. Juveniles hatch, struggle out of the sandy nest, and 

32 make their way to their respective ocean habitats. Although there are no sandy coastline 

33 habitats in the area of the CFBC or the CREC discharge area, juvenile and adult sea turtles 

34 have been found in these vicinities. A brief overview is provided for the sea turtle species, with 

35 more discussion of life-history attributes and potential for impacts in Appendix F as part of the 

36 biological assessment. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-114 August 2010 

1 PEF has an ongoing program to monitor the intake canal for the presence of sea turtles, 

2 perform rescues for stranded individuals, provide rehabilitation, and release resources when 

3 possible. Between 1999 and 2005, 8 loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta), 38 green sea 

4 turtles (Chelonia mydas), 1 hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and 92 Kemp’s ridley 

5 sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) have been collected at CREC (Eaton et al. 2008). PEF 

6 currently has an incidental take permit from NMFS that allows an incidental live take of 75 sea 

7 turtles annually, 3 annual causal sea turtle mortalities, and a reporting requirement for non8 causal related mortalities of 8 or more within a 12-month period (NMFS 2002). 

9 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 

10 Loggerhead sea turtles occur all along the Gulf of Mexico coast in shallow coastal and estuarine 

11 waters as well as along the outer continental shelf. In the Gulf of Mexico, loggerhead sea turtles 

12 appear to be concentrated along the southern west coast of Florida (NMFS and FWS 2008). 

13 They also are abundant, particularly during the summer, throughout the U.S. coast of the Gulf of 

14 Mexico. Most sightings of loggerheads off west Florida are within 86 mi of land. Adult female 

15 loggerheads nest above the high-tide line and sometimes in vegetation at the top of sandy 

16 beaches. In south Florida, nesting may occur from late April (rare) to the beginning of 

17 September, with peak nesting activity in June and July. Newly emerged turtles immediately 

18 crawl toward the sea, probably orienting toward the reflected light of the moon (Dodd 1988). 

19 They remain offshore for 3 to 5 years (NOAA 1989) and are about 1.5 ft long when they return 

20 to coastal waters to forage as subadults. Subadult and adult loggerheads are primarily bottom 

21 feeders, foraging in coastal waters for benthic mollusks and crustaceans (Plotkin et al. 1993). 

22 Between 1999 and 2005, eight loggerhead sea turtles (juveniles, subadults, and adults) were 

23 collected in the intake canal or on the bar racks associated with the intakes for CREC Units 1–3 

24 (Eaton et al. 2008). Nearshore Gulf Coast areas along the Florida coast are important habitat 

25 for juveniles. Schmid reported captures of 20 loggerheads from spring through late fall south of 

26 Cedar Key as a part of a population study between 1985 and 1996 (Schmid 1998). 

27 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

28 Currently, green sea turtles nest from along the southwestern coastline of Florida to the Georgia 

29 border and in the northwestern portion of Florida along the panhandle where nests in these 

30 areas seem to be gradually increasing every year (FFWCC 2009e). For nesting, females 

31 require the high-energy (wave-active), sandy beaches of barrier islands and mainland shores 

32 above the high-water line. Upon emergence, hatchlings immediately seek out the shore and 

33 open water (NMFS and FWS 1991). Juvenile green sea turtles drift with the prevailing surface34 water currents until they reach a size of 12 to 16 in. at 1 to 3 years and then return to shallow 

35 coastal waters, where they spend most of their lives in shallow benthic feeding grounds. A 

36 study in 1955 collected 43 juvenile green sea turtles in the Cedar Key area extending southward 

37 along the Levy and Citrus County coastal areas including Crystal Bay (Carr and Caldwell 1955). 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-115 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Another sampling project collected 10 subadults along seagrass shoals from June to September 

2 in the Waccassassa Bay area over a 12-year period from 1985 to 1996 (Schmid 1998). 

3 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

4 Leatherback sea turtles are a largely pelagic species, but also forage in coastal waters. 

5 Juveniles and adults feed throughout the water column to depths of at least 3900 ft (NMFS 

6 2009p), consuming jellyfish and other gelatinous zooplankton, such as salps, ctenophores, and 

7 siphonophores (Salmon et al. 2004). Only a small fraction of the Gulf of Mexico and North 

8 Atlantic leatherback populations nest on beaches of the continental United States, mostly in 

9 Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Bjorndal et al. 1994). Nesting occurs from April to July. 

10 Little is known about the behavior or distribution of hatchling and juvenile leatherback sea 

11 turtles. Leatherback nests are rare north of Sarasota County and east of the panhandle on the 

12 western coast of Florida (FFWCC 2009f). No leatherback sea turtles have been collected in the 

13 intake canal or on the intake bar racks at CREC. 

14 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

15 Hawksbill sea turtles show a high fidelity to their nesting beaches and return to the same or a 

16 nearby beach year after year. There have only been a few verified reports of hawksbill sea 

17 turtles nesting in south Florida, mostly on the east coast. Juveniles and subadults tend to 

18 remain and feed on coral reefs near their natal beaches. Hatchling hawksbills congregate in 

19 Sargassum rafts to feed and grow for a year or more after emerging from the nest (NMFS and 

20 FWS 1993). While in the Sargassum rafts, they consume pelagic fish eggs and larvae, small 

21 invertebrates associated with the floating algae, and the Sargassum itself. Subadults and adults 

22 are omnivorous scavengers. They seem to have a preference for benthic invertebrate prey, 

23 particularly sponges and biofouling organisms (Meylan 1999). Because of their food 

24 preferences, they tend to be most abundant in shallow coral- and rocky-reef habitats. These 

25 habitats are rare in the northern Gulf of Mexico, accounting in part for the rarity of hawksbill sea 

26 turtles in the region. Only one hawksbill sea turtle was collected over the three studies 

27 previously mentioned off Citrus and Levy Counties in the Gulf of Mexico; none has been 

28 reported at CREC (Eaton et al. 2008; Carr and Caldwell 1955; Schmid 1998), and they are 

29 considered rare in these coastal areas throughout the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coastal areas (NMFS 

30 2009m). 

31 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 

32 Nearly all reproduction of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles takes place along a single 9.3-mi stretch of 

33 beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, about 200 mi south of Brownsville, Texas 

34 (Marquez 1994). Hatchlings migrate rapidly down the beach and out to sea where they spend a 

35 period of perhaps 2 years in the pelagic zone. During the pelagic period, they presumably feed 

36 on zooplankton and floating matter, including Sargassum weed and the associated biotic 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-116 August 2010 

1 community. After a pelagic feeding stage shortly after hatching and lasting for several months, 

2 the juvenile ridleys move into shallow coastal waters to feed and grow. The young subadults 

3 often forage in water less than 3 ft deep, but they tend to move into deeper water as they grow. 

4 Ridley sea turtles are found mainly in the Gulf of Mexico, with the northern and northeastern 

5 Gulf of Mexico being prime foraging areas for juvenile, subadult, and post-nesting female ridleys 

6 (Marquez 1994). They often are observed associated with portunid crabs (Callinectes spp.), 

7 their favorite prey. Although Kemp’s ridley sea turtles nest exclusively on beaches in Mexico 

8 (Marquez 1994), juveniles of this species are caught frequently along the coastal areas of Levy 

9 and Citrus Counties. The Waccassassa Bay study from 1985 to 1996 collected 269 Kemp’s 

10 ridley sea turtles (Schmid 1998), and 25 were collected in 1955 (Carr and Caldwell 1955). The 

11 latter two studies indicate that as subadults this species uses the oyster reef and seagrass 

12 habitats for foraging activities. Since 1999, 99 live takes, 11 CREC non-causal mortalities, and 

13 5 CREC causal mortalities have been reported in the CREC intake canal (PEF 2001 ; PEF 

14 2003; PEF 2004; PEF 2005; PEF 2006; PEF 2007; PEF 2008b; PEF 2009e; PEF 2010) 

15 Suwannee Cooter (Pseudemys concinna suwanniensis) 

16 The Suwannee cooter is a freshwater Florida species of concern that inhabits freshwater rivers 

17 from Hillsborough to Gulf Coast Counties and estuarine habitats at the mouths of coastal rivers 

18 along the Gulf of Mexico (FNAI 2009). Although prevalent in many river systems, this species is 

19 susceptible to degradation of nesting habitat along river and stream banks and to water quality. 

20 As with most basking turtles, mating takes place in early spring followed by nesting from May to 

21 June on high banks or berms along freshwater rivers and streams. Mostly herbivorous, the 

22 Suwannee cooter feeds on aquatic vegetation (Ward and Jackson 2008). No observations or 

23 collections of Suwannee cooter were noted during the year of sampling in the OWR or the 

24 CFBC (CH2M Hill 2009b); therefore, this species will not be considered further. 

25 Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

26 The gulf sturgeon has been jointly managed and listed as a threatened species by NMFS and 

27 FWS, with NMFS managing the nearshore and offshore habitat range and FWS managing 

28 inland from river mile zero. Historically, the range for this anadromous sturgeon extended from 

29 Louisiana to south of Tampa Bay, Florida, where it feeds in the Gulf of Mexico and returns to 

30 freshwater for spawning. The current range is limited to the Mississippi River east to the 

31 Suwannee River, Florida, where the Suwanee River supports the largest subpopulation of gulf 

32 sturgeon (Carr et al. 1996). Critical habitat for Florida nearest to the LNP site 8 mi to the north 

33 of the CFBC and is designated for 182 mi of the Suwannee River, 12 mi of the northern 

34 Withlacoochee River (not connected to the lower Withlacoochee River in the vicinity of the LNP 

site) where it branches off to the north of the Suwannee River, and 211 mi2 35 of estuarine/marine 

36 area of Suwannee Sound, which is north of Cedar Key (68 FR 13370). Gulf sturgeon show a 

37 high homing fidelity (site-specific) spawning behavior based on gene flow between river 

38 drainages (Stabile et al. 1996). Male gulf sturgeon mature in 7 to 9 years and females mature in 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-117 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 8 to 12 years (Huff 1975). Spawning occurs in the Suwannee River when temperatures range 

2 between 17 and 22°C in late March to mid-April and the substrate is characterized as clean 

3 gravel-cobble mix over rock with strong, persistent laminar flows and eddies that created 

4 reversed or diminished bottom currents. Young-of-the-year sturgeon disperse widely 

5 downstream of spawning habitats within the river, inhabiting open sandy areas away from 

6 shorelines and vegetation (Sulak and Clugston 1998). Juvenile and adult gulf sturgeon typically 

7 out-migrate to the marine environment, although some populations tend to hold over in brackish 

8 water for a period up to 2 months before moving into the open Gulf of Mexico (Carr et al. 1996). 

9 There are no known spawning populations associated with river systems south of the 

10 Suwannee River along the Florida coast, and estuarine/marine critical habitat for the gulf 

11 sturgeon does not occur south of Cedar Key. No gulf sturgeon were observed or collected 

12 during the sampling events described in Section 2.4.2.1 for the CFBC, OWR, or CREC 

13 discharge area (CH2M Hill 2009b). More discussion of the potential impacts of the LNP site is 

14 provided in Appendix F under biological assessment. 

15 Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) 

16 The smalltooth sawfish is a cartilaginous fish, closely related to sharks and rays, that inhabits 

17 coastal inland shallows with muddy or sandy substrate where it feeds on benthic fish and 

18 crustaceans. Once prevalent from the Atlantic U.S. coast through the Gulf of Mexico to Texas, 

19 it is currently found only near the southern tip of Florida (Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2006), which 

20 supports an actively spawning population. Still under review, critical habitat designation is 

21 proposed to protect this population from Charlotte Harbor to Florida Bay (73 FR 70290), 

22 because site fidelity has been observed for this species. Observations of smalltooth sawfish 

23 north of Port Charlotte are rare, but two sightings in the coastal Florida panhandle region have 

24 been documented since August 2008 (FMNH 2009b). Since 2000, four smalltooth sawfish 

25 juveniles have been either caught or sighted offshore of Citrus County; one at the mouth of the 

26 CFBC and another just outside the CREC discharge canal (FMNH 2009b). However, no 

27 smalltooth sawfish were observed or collected during the sampling events described in Section 

28 2.4.2.1 for the CFBC, OWR, and CREC discharge area (CH2M Hill 2009b). More discussion of 

29 the potential impacts of the LNP site is provided in Appendix F under biological assessment. 

30 Corals

31 Both staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) and elkhorn (Acropora palmata) corals are Federally 

32 endangered reef-building corals found primarily along the Atlantic coast of Florida and the 

33 Caribbean. Designated critical habitat for these two species was established in November 

34 2008, and areas off coastal Florida for Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe 

35 Counties are listed. There are no known occurrences of either staghorn or elkhorn coral in 

36 Florida Gulf of Mexico waters north of Sanibel Island (73 FR 72210), and therefore, these 

37 species will not be discussed further. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-118 August 2010 

1 Table 2-14 lists important species identified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

2 staff that are expected to occur in the vicinity of the CFBC and CREC point of discharge and 

3 could be affected by construction and/or operation of the LNP. 

4 Table 2-14. Important Species and Likelihood of Occurrence in Waters Associated with 

5 Construction and Operation of LNP Units 1 and 2 

Species Category 

Occurrence 

CFBC OWR Crystal Bay 

Transmission 

Corridors 

Black mullet Commercial/recreational Observed May occur Observed May occur 

Red grouper Commercial/recreational May occur Not likely May occur May occur 

Crevalle jack Commercial/recreational Observed May occur Observed May occur 

Ladyfish Commercial/recreational Observed May occur Observed May occur 

Black grouper Commercial/recreational May occur Not likely May occur Not likely 

Gag grouper Commercial/recreational May occur Not likely May occur Not likely 

Grunts Commercial/recreational Observed May occur Observed May occur 

Porgies Commercial/recreational Observed May occur Observed May occur 

Pink shrimp Commercial/recreational Observed may occur Observed May occur 

blue crab Commercial/recreational Observed May occur Observed May occur 

stone crab Commercial/recreational May occur Not likely Observed May occur 

oysters Commercial/recreational Observed Not likely Observed May occur 

Spotted seatrout Recreational Observed May occur Observed May occur 

Cobia Recreational May occur May occur May occur May occur 

Common snook Recreational Observed May occur Observed May occur 

Red drum Recreational Observed May occur Observed May occur 

Flounder Recreational Observed Not likely Observed May occur 

Silver perch Essential Observed Not likely Observed May occur 

Spotfin mojarra Essential Observed Observed Observed May occur 

Spot Essential Observed Not likely Observed May occur 

Bay anchovy Essential Observed Observed Observed May occur 

Saltmarsh 

topminnow 

Rare Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Ivory bush coral Rare Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Dusky shark Rare Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Largetooth sawfish Rare Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Night shark Rare Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Sand tiger shark Rare Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-119 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-14. (contd) 

Species Category 

Occurrence 

CFBC OWR Crystal Bay 

Transmission 

Corridors 

Speckled hind 

Warsaw grouper 

Blue whale 

Finback whale 

Rare 

Rare 

Federal/State status 

Federal/State status 

Not likely 

Not likely 

 Not likely 

 Not likely 

Not likely 

Not likely 

Not likely 

Not likely 

May occur 

May occur 

Not likely 

Not likely 

Not likely 

Not likely 

Not likely 

Not likely 

Humpback whale Federal/State status Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Sei whale Federal/State status Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Sperm whale Federal/State status Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Loggerhead sea 

turtle 

Federal/State status May occur May occur Observed May occur 

Green sea turtle Federal/State status May occur May occur Observed May occur 

Leatherback sea 

turtle 

Federal/State status Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Hawksbill sea turtle Federal/State status May occur May occur Observed May occur 

Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtle 

Federal/State status May occur May occur Observed May occur 

Suwannee cooter State status May occur May occur Not likely May occur 

Gulf sturgeon Federal/State status May occur May occur May occur May occur 

Smalltooth sawfish Federal/State status May occur May occur May occur Not likely 

Elkhorn coral Federal/State status Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Staghorn coral Federal/State status Not likely Not likely Not likely Not likely 

Sources: FWS 2008a; NMFS 2008b; FFWCC 2008; PEF 2009a.

2 Critical Habitats 

3 There are no critical habitats designated by the NMFS or FWS in the vicinity of the LNP site, or 

4 crossed by transmission-line corridors. The gulf sturgeon critical habitat occurs on the Gulf 

5 Coast of Florida in the Suwannee River and the immediate offshore area and are described 

6 further under the Federally and State-listed species subheading for gulf sturgeon (68 FR 

7 13370). Critical habitat for the smalltooth sawfish of over 220,000 ac of coastal habitat in the 

8 Charlotte Harbor estuary and over 619 coastal ac in the Ten Thousand Islands/Everglades 

9 region of Florida Bay are currently under review for designation and are described further under 

10 the Federally and State-listed species subheading for smalltooth sawfish (73 FR 70290). 

11 Critical habitat for the Florida manatee closest to the LNP site includes Crystal River and its 

12 headwaters known as Kings Bay in Citrus County (41 FR 41914). Because there are no aquatic 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-120 August 2010 

1 critical habitats likely to be affected by the proposed LNP or associated offsite facilities and 

2 transmission-line corridors, further discussion is not warranted. 

3 Essential Fish Habitats 

4 Essential fish habitat is defined as the waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, 

5 feeding, or growth to maturity. The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 USC 

6 1801 et seq.) identified the importance of habitat protection to healthy fisheries. Identifying 

7 essential fish habitat is an essential component in the development of fishery management 

8 plans to evaluate the effects of habitat loss or degradation on fishery stocks and take actions to 

9 mitigate such damage. The CFBC and CREC discharge area of the Gulf of Mexico are 

10 designated as Ecoregion 2 by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council; the region 

11 extends from Tarpon Springs north to Pensacola Bay, Florida (NOAA 2004). Estuarine and 

12 marine essential fish habitats have been designated by NMFS in the CFBC and immediate 

13 nearshore Gulf of Mexico near the CREC discharge and CFBC for species listed in Table 2-15. 

14 There are no habitat areas of particular concern near the CREC discharge area or the CFBC. 

15 Further discussion is presented in the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment in Appendix F. 

16 2.4.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring 

17 This section describes the analysis and evaluation of PEF’s preapplication monitoring programs. 

18 At the proposed LNP discharge location, a current NPDES permit (FL0000159) for CREC 

19 Units 1, 2, and 3 requires seasonal flow restrictions and stock enhancement/replacement of 

20 aquatic species (red drum, spotted seatrout, pink shrimp, striped mullet, pigfish, silver perch, 

21 blue crab, and stone crab) for compliance with Clean Water Act Section 316(b) (PEF 2008c). 

22 There are no requirements in the current NRC operating license for current CREC Unit 3 to 

23 monitor aquatic resources, including specific aquatic ecological monitoring of the algal 

24 community, benthic invertebrates, or fish (AEC 1973). However, PEF has conducted a year of 

25 sampling events for the CFBC and CREC discharge area to characterize the aquatic 

26 communities in both of these areas (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

27 From October 2007 to November 2008, four stations in the CFBC were sampled extending from 

28 the Inglis Lock downstream to the mouth of the CFBC at the Gulf of Mexico and offshore of the 

29 mouth of the CFBC. Two stations associated with the CREC discharge were also sampled to 

30 establish background data on aquatic communities at the point of discharge into Crystal Bay, 

31 and offshore of the point of discharge from April 2008 to November 2008 (Figure 2-20). These 

32 six stations were sampled for motile macroinvertebrates, plankton, invertebrates, and fish. 

33 Water quality in the CFBC was assessed during multiple sampling events from October 2007 to 

34 October 2008. Mineral concentrations, dissolved oxygen, carbon, temperature, salinity, pH, 

35 dissolved solids, and suspended solids were measured (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

36 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-121 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-15. Estuarine Essential Fish Habitat Species for the CFBC and CREC Discharge Area

Fishery 

Management 

Plan Species Common Name 

Potentially Affected 

Life Stage 

Coastal migratory 

pelagic 

Scombermorus maculatus Spanish mackerel Eggs, juveniles, adults 

Reef fish Lachnolaimus maximus hogfish Juveniles 

Reef fish Lutjanus apodus schoolmaster Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Reef fish Seriola fasciata lesser amberjack Eggs, larvae 

Reef fish Seriola dumerili greater amberjack Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Reef fish Diplectrum bivittatum dwarf sand perch juveniles 

Reef fish Lutjanus griseus gray (mangrove) snapper Eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults

Reef fish Lutjanus jocu dog snapper Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Reef fish Lutjanus synagris lane snapper Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Reef fish Ocyurus chrysurus yellowtail snapper Eggs, juveniles, adults 

Reef fish Rhomboplites aurorubens vermillion snapper Juveniles 

Reef fish Lutjanus campechanus red snapper adults 

Reef fish Epinephelus morio red grouper Juveniles, adults 

Reef fish Mycteroperca bonaci black grouper Juveniles, adults 

Reef fish Mycteroperca microlepis gag grouper Juveniles 

Reef fish Epinephelus striatus Nassau grouper Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Reef fish Epinephelus adscensionis rock hind Eggs, larvae 

Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus red drum Larvae, juveniles, adults 

Shrimp Litopenaeus setiferus white shrimp Larvae, juveniles 

Shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum pink shrimp Eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults

Stone crab Menippe mercenaria Florida stone crab Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Source: NMFS 2008b. 

2 Water quality in the CREC was measured at stations 3 and 4, and at two additional stations 

3 within the CREC discharge canal structure. Mineral concentrations, carbon, dissolved oxygen, 

4 temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved solids and suspended solids were measured in September 

5 and November 2008 (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

6 The OWR stations were established to provide additional information about aquatic 

7 communities occurring between the Inglis Dam and the CFBC in the OWR. Water-quality 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-122 August 2010 

1 samples were collected in June and August 2008, while biological sampling was conducted over 

2 a 3-month period from May to July 2008. 

3 As part of the State of Florida’s Conditions of Certification, “[p]re-operational surveys and 

4 monitoring shall be conducted for a period of time to be determined by statistical analysis in 

5 coordination between the FWC and the Licensee in order to establish seasonal/climatological 

6 baseline, biological and water quality conditions” (FDEP 2010a). PEF will submit a CFBC and 

7 Withlacoochee River Survey and Monitoring Plan to the State for approval prior to initiation of 

8 formal monitoring. 

9 2.5 Socioeconomics 

10 This section describes the characteristics of the 50-mi region and the three-county local area of 

11 greatest economic impact surrounding the LNP site, including demographics, economics, and 

12 community characteristics that form the basis for the review team’s assessment of the potential 

13 social and economic impacts of building and operating the LNP facility. 

14 The review team examined PEF’s ER and verified the data sources used in its preparation by 

15 examining cited references and by independently confirming data in discussions with community 

16 members and public officials (NRC 2009b). The review team requested clarifications and 

17 additional information from PEF where needed to verify data in the ER. Unless otherwise 

18 specified in the sections below, the review team has drawn upon verified data from PEF (2009a, 

19 c, d, e, h). Where the review team used different analytical methods or additional information 

20 for its own analysis, the sections below include explanatory discussions and citations for 

21 additional sources. 

22 The baseline discussion considers the entire region within a 50-mi radius of the LNP site, with a 

23 focus on Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties. Also discussed are some baseline data for the 

24 emergency planning zone (EPZ) defined by the 10-mi radius and the low-population zone (LPZ) 

25 defined by the 3-mi radius (Figure 2-21). The geographic areas defined by the three radii (50 

26 mi, 10 mi, and 3 mi) are shown in Figure 2-21 and Figure 2-22. 

27 

28 Levy County, the location of the proposed LNP units, and adjacent Citrus and Marion Counties 

29 are considered to be the Economic Impact Area (EIA) for socioeconomic analyses. This is 

30 because (1) the construction, preconstruction, and operations workforces are expected to be 

31 drawn primarily from residents of these three counties, including both local residents and in32 migrants and, (2) the three counties would receive the majority of any benefits and stresses to 

33 community services from the additional workers. 
August 2010 2-123 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-21. 10-Mi Sector Chart (PEF 2009a) 2 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-124 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-22. Regional Sector Chart (PEF 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-125 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The review team examined the possibility that significant numbers of workers (numbering up to 

2 3300 during the peak construction employment period) may choose to live in a county within 

3 50 mi of the proposed LNP, but outside the three counties. The LNP site has relatively easy 

4 access to Gainesville in Alachua County to the north and to portions of four other counties 

5 (Hernando, Sumter, Gilchrist, and Dixie as potential areas of residence for proposed LNP 

6 construction, preconstruction, and operation workers. Nevertheless, significant socioeconomic 

7 impacts are unlikely in these areas, because the population of the Gainesville area is large 

8 relative to the size of the workforce, and the accessible communities in the other counties offer 

9 little to differentiate them from the communities in the EIA that would be reached in much 

10 shorter commute times. Therefore, it is expected that the other counties would receive few 

11 workers as residents. Consequently, the remainder of the discussion in this section will 

12 concentrate on the three counties of primary interest: Levy, Citrus, and Marion. 

13 2.5.1 Demographics 

14 The review team evaluated the demographic characteristics of resident and transient 

15 populations living within the 50-mi region of the proposed LNP. Regional data were gathered by 

16 sector; the area within a 3-mi radius of the proposed LNP; and the area within 10-mi radius of 

17 the LNP site. The review team has presented these data by county as well as for the EIA. For 

18 definitional purposes, “residents” live permanently in the area, while “transients” may temporarily 

19 live in the area but have permanent residences elsewhere. Transients are not fully 

20 characterized by the U.S. Census, which generally captures only individuals resident in the area 

21 at the time of the census. 

22 The data used in this section were derived by PEF from the 2000 Census, other estimates from 

23 the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), the State of Florida, and Warrington College of Business at 

24 the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). The 2000 

25 census data were used to make comparisons across the region (by sector), among counties, 

26 with the State of Florida, and with the United States as a whole. The 2000 census data were 

27 used as a baseline and projected to 2080, using growth estimates from BEBR (2006). BEBR 

28 provides a projected percent change in Florida county populations in 10-year increments from 

29 2000 to 2030. PEF applied the average of the change rates for the four periods (2000 to 2005; 

30 2000 to 2010; 2010 to 2020; and 2020 to 2030) to generate expected population change rates 

31 for 10-year increments between 2030 and 2080. PEF applied the resulting county-level change 

32 rates to the census block populations within the 50-mi radius (PEF 2009a). The review team 

33 concluded that the approach to demographic analysis performed by PEF was reasonable and 

34 that the review team could rely upon it for its analysis. 

35 2.5.1.1 Resident Population 

36 Figure 2-21 presents the geographic boundaries of the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 10-mi radial areas 

37 extending from the LNP site. Figure 2-22 shows concentric circles in 10-mi increments up to 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-126 August 2010 

1 50 mi from the proposed LNP location. The centers of the circles on these maps are at the 

2 midway point between the two proposed reactor buildings (LNP 1 and LNP 2). 

3 In the year 2000, approximately 2 percent of the resident population of the region lived within 

4 10 mi of the LNP site. The remaining 98 percent lived between 10 mi and 50 mi of the LNP site. 

5 The resident population within 10 mi of the LNP site is concentrated in and around the 

6 communities of Yankeetown to the west-southwest of the LNP site, Inglis to the southwest, and 

7 Dunnellon to the east. Within the larger area, the resident population is concentrated around 

8 the cities of Gainesville to the northeast, Crystal River to the south, and Ocala to the east. 

9 Tables G-1 and G-2 under socioeconomics in Appendix G provide the population distribution 

10 among sectors within 10 mi of the LNP site for the year 2000 and projected to 2080, 

11 respectively. Tables G-3 and G-4 in Appendix G provide the same data for the population living 

12 between 10 and 50 mi of the LNP site. Table 2-16 presents current and projected resident 

13 populations by county.

14 Table 2-17 provides the age and gender distribution of the resident population within the 3 mi, 

15 10 mi, and 50 mi of the proposed site. Gender distribution within the 3 mi exhibited a slightly 

16 higher male population, while the 10 mi and the 50 mi exhibited a slightly higher female 

17 population. The populations within the 3 mi, 10 mi, and the 50 mi were primarily in the age 

18 categories of 5 to 17 years and 40 years and older. Age distribution within the 10 mi exhibited 

19 slightly higher percentage (roughly 26 percent) of population 65 and older, when compared to 

20 the 3 mi (18 percent) and the 50 mi (23 percent). Within the region, over 40 percent of the total 

21 population is 50 years or older. This is an older population compared to the United States as a 

22 whole, where only 21 percent of the population was 55 years or older in 2000. 

23 Table 2-18 provides the racial and ethnic distribution of residents within the 3 mi, 10 mi, and 50 

24 mi. Together, African-American and Hispanic residents make up less than 1 percent of the 

25 population within the 3 mi, approximately 6 percent of the population within the 10 mi, and 

26 15.8 percent within the 50 mi; all racial and ethnic distributions are less than the national 

27 average for minority populations of 37 percent and the Florida State average of 22.1 percent 

28 (PEF 2009a).
 Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-127 August 2010 Table 2-16. Population Projections by County from 2000 to 2080 1 Geographic Area Census Estimates(a) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 Alachua 217,955 240,764 260,751 279,666 295,115 308,572 321,090 365,625 416,337 474,083 539,839 614,714 Citrus 118,085 132,635 147,437 161,108 173,576 184,608 195,037 230,768 273,044 323,066 382,252 452,280 Dixie 13,827 15,377 16,973 18,455 19,820 21,039 22,174 25,972 30,421 35,633 41,737 48,886 Gilchrist 14,437 16,221 18,583 20,714 22,734 24,563 26,284 32,124 39,262 47,986 58,649 71,681 Hernando 130,802 150,784 169,976 187,984 204,408 218,903 232,695 282,375 342,663 415,821 504,599 612,331 Lake 210,528 263,017 313,154 359,898 403,774 443,159 480,109 634,704 839,079 1,109,262 1,466,445 1,938,640 Levy 34,450 37,985 42,411 46,466 50,271 53,679 56,861 67,238 79,509 94,020 111,178 131,468 Marion 258,916 304,926 350,923 393,456 433,076 468,346 501,227 625,982 781,789 976,377 1,219,397 1,522,905 Pasco 344,765 406,898 463, 635 517,438 566,673 610,367 650,997 806,325 998,714 1,237,007 1,532,157 1,897,730 Putnam 70,423 73,764 76,957 79,965 82,785 85,309 87,677 94,332 101,491 109,195 117,483 126,399 Sumter 53,345 74,052 92,211 109,294 125,498 140,203 154,116 221,804 319,220 459,421 661,199 951,598 Source: PEF 2009c, which derived data from the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Warrington College of Business, University of Florida “Estimates of Florida Population, 2006,” 2007. (a) Populations projections for 2040–2080 were based on the average percent growth from four periods 2000–2005, 2000–2010, 2010–2020, and 2020-2030. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-128 August 2010 

1 Table 2-17. Age and Gender Distribution Within the Region (2000)

Within 3 mi radius Within 10 mi radius Within 50 mi radius 

Male 199 8543 429,978 

Female 187 8900 454,089 

Under 5 yrs 14 735 42,485 

5 yr to 17 yr 67 2744 131,631 

18 yr to 21 yr 5 540 57,507 

22 yr to 29 yr 20 897 79,480 

30 yr to 39 yr 40 1890 102,665 

40 yr to 49 yr 67 2399 111,079 

50 yr to 64 yr 80 3747 153,724 

65 yr and older 66 4487 205,491 

Source: PEF 2009a, which derived data from the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Warrington 

College of Business, University of Florida, “Detailed Population Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin 

for Florida and Its Counties, 2005–2030,” 2006. 

2 Table 2-18. Percent Racial and Ethnic Distribution Within the Region (2000) 

AfricanAmerican Asian 

Native 

Hawaiian or 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander 

Native 

American Caucasian Other 

Two or 

More 

Races Hispanic 

Within a 

3 mi 

radius 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.25 

Within a 

10 mi 

radius 

3.5 0.6 0.0 0.3 94 0.5 1.1 2.5 

Within 

region 

10.8 1.4 0.0 0.4 84.8 1.2 1.4 5.0 

Source: PEF 2009a, which derived data from the USCB, “American Factfinder” website, Census 2000 Summary File 

1, 100-percent data, Tables P.7 and P.8. 

3 Within the 3 mi, 16.1 percent of the population lived below the poverty level in 1999, which was 

4 higher than the national average of 12.4 percent and the Florida state average of 12.5 percent. 

5 Individuals below the poverty level in the 10 mi (10.5 percent) and the 50 mi (12 percent) were 

6 both lower than the national and State averages. Table 2-19 provides household income data. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-129 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-19. Income Distribution Within the Region – Percent of Households (1999) 

Within 3 mi radius Within 10 mi radius Within Region 

Less than $10,000 16.1 10.5 12.0 

$10,000 to $14,999 12.0 10.5 8.5 

$15,000 to $19,999 13.1 10.4 8.7 

$20,000 to $24,999 6.2 9.7 9.3 

$25,000 to $29,999 9.0 9.8 8.6 

$30,000 to $34,999 6.6 7.9 7.8 

$35,000 to $39,999 5.8 6.5 6.6 

$40,000 to $44,999 5.8 4.1 5.9 

$45,000 to $49,999 4.3 4.8 5.1 

$50,000 to $59,999 9.4 7.8 8.2 

$60,000 to $74,999 5.8 8.1 7.5 

$75,000 to $99,999 4.1 4.6 5.9 

$100,000 to $124,999 1.1 2.3 2.7 

$125,000 to $149,999 0.2 0.9 1.2 

$150,000 to $199,999 0.2 1.1 0.9 

$200,000 or More 0.4 0.9 1.2 

Source: PEF 2009a, which derived data from the USCB, “American Factfinder” website, Census 2000 Summary File 

3, Sample data, Table QT-P32. 

2 2.5.1.2 Transient Population 

3 Transients include seasonal or daily workers or visitors to large workplaces, schools, hospitals 

4 and nursing homes, correctional facilities, hotels and motels, and at recreational areas or 

5 special events. Transient population data for the region were obtained from the 

6 2000 U.S. Census, county economic development offices, telephone surveys and interviews, a 

7 geographic information system (GIS), and the USDA (Agricultural Census) (PEF 2009d). Table 

8 2-20 provides the baseline transient population information by county for seasonal populations, 

9 hotel/motel guests, and migrant workers, as well as recreational area daily capacities for each 

10 county in the region. 

11 2.5.1.3 Migrant Labor 

12 The USCB defines a migrant worker as an individual employed in the agricultural industry in a 

13 seasonal or temporary nature and who is required to be absent overnight from his or her 

14 permanent place of residence. The 2002 Census of Agriculture provides the following 

15 information on farms, workers, and use of migrant workers in the three counties (USDA 2002). 

16 Levy County reported 322 farms and 1013 workers; with use of migrant labor at eight farms. 

17 For Citrus County, 55 farms and 245 workers were reported; one farm using migrant labor. 

18 Marion County reported 771 farms, 3824 workers; two farms using migrant labor. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-130 August 2010 

1 Table 2-20 values for migrant workers were estimated by PEF by averaging the number of 

2 migrant farm laborers per farm, and then multiplying the average by the total number of farms 

3 using migrant farm labor in each county. The review team agreed with this approach. 

4 Table 2-20. Summary of Baseline Transient Populations by County

County in 

Region 

Alachua 

County 

Citrus 

County 

Dixie 

County 

Gilchrist 

County 

Hernando 

County 

Lake 

County 

Levy 

County 

Marion 

County 

Pasco 

County 

Putnam 

County 

Sumter 

County 

Seasonal 1699 12,824 3396 948 8808 16,601 2680 12,982 36,640 7299 5839 

Hotel/motel(a) 1425 715 NA NA 560 450 610 2065 220 NA 275 

Recreational 

areas(b)

4496 8258 0 0 NA 622 4854 2849 0 0 980 

Migrant 

workers 

111 5 0 70 67 319 25 10 35 77 56 

Source: PEF 2009d. 

(a) Hotel/motel information displayed as NA for counties where there were no hotels/motels identified within a 50-mi 

radius of the LNP site. 

(b) Values represent the sum of daily capacities for all recreational areas found in each county. 

NA = Not available

5 2.5.2 Community Characteristics 

6 This section characterizes the communities that may be affected by building and operations 

7 activities associated with proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. Seven sections evaluate community 

8 characteristics in terms of economy, taxes, transportation, aesthetics and recreation, housing, 

9 public services, and education. The review team drew information for this characterization from 

10 analysis of PEF’s ER (PEF 2009a) and its sources; a technical memorandum assessing 

11 community services (CH2M Hill 2009a); and interviews with local officials, agency staff, and 

12 residents (NRC 2009b). Information drawn from other sources is cited specifically below. 

13 While all or part of 11 counties fall within a 50-mi radius of the LNP site, three counties (Lake, 

14 Pasco, and Sumter) are not included in the economic analysis because less than 2 percent of 

15 the land area of each is within 50 mi of the proposed site. The remaining eight counties 

16 (Alachoa, Citrus, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hernando, Levy, Marion, and Sumter) therefore define the 

17 region addressed in this analysis, with the exception of the aesthetics and recreation analysis, 

18 which addresses all 11 counties. Although it discusses effects within the eight-county region, 

19 this section focuses on communities in the three counties closest to the site: Levy, Citrus, and 

20 Marion. As discussed above, the review team expects these counties to house the majority of 

21 workers, both those from the existing local workforce and those who would move into the area 

22 to work at the site. Consequently, the effects on community infrastructure and services resulting 

23 from building and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would be expected to occur 

24 primarily in these counties, particularly in the smaller communities that could provide housing for 

25 workers within easy commuting distance of the LNP site. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-131 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The LNP site is in the southern portion of Levy County. The town of Inglis, at a 4.1-mi driving 

2 distance from the site, is the only incorporated area within 6 mi of the LNP site. Yankeetown is 

3 about 2 mi west of Inglis or about a 6.5-mi driving distance. Other incorporated municipalities in 

4 Levy County, all at a driving distance of 20 mi or more, include Bronson (the County Seat), 

5 Cedar Key, Chiefland, Fanning Springs, Otter Creek, and Williston. In Citrus County, Crystal 

6 River (at a 15-mi driving distance from the LNP site) and Inverness (the County Seat, 32 mi) are 

7 the only incorporated areas, although a number of unincorporated areas have grown since 

8 construction of the CREC. Within Marion County, Dunnellon is about 18-mi driving distance 

9 from the LNP site, Ocala (the County Seat) is about 36 mi away, and Belleview is about 46 mi; 

10 these are the only incorporated municipalities within a 50-mi driving distance. Gainesville, a 

11 major city in Alachua County, lies about 50 mi from the site, close to an hour’s drive away (City 

12 of Wonders 2009; NRC 2009b; Kimley-Horn 2009). 

13 Each county is governed by five elected county commissioners. Yankeetown has a mayor and 

14 four city council members. The other municipalities of interest, including Crystal River, Inglis, 

15 Dunnellon, Inverness, and Ocala, have a mayor and four or five council members as well as a 

16 city manager who implements policy set by the council. Both city council and city manager 

17 forms of government have administrative and department staff to carry out city business (City of 

18 Wonders 2009). 

19 Levy County is the local planning authority for the LNP site; it controls land use through the 

20 Future Land Use element of its Comprehensive Plan (Levy County 2008b). At the regional 

21 level, the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council covers all areas within a 6-mi radius of the 

22 site. Portions of the area between 6 and 10 mi from the site fall into four other Regional 

23 Planning Councils – North Central Florida, Northeast Florida, East Central Florida, and Tampa 

24 Bay. Section 2.2 describes regional and local land-use plans in greater detail. 

25 2.5.2.1 Economy 

26 The economic centers of the 50-mi region are Gainesville in Alachua County and Ocala in 

27 Marion County. The two largest employers in the EIA are in Marion County. Marion’s top 10 

28 employers include two medical centers, four manufacturers (of wire harnesses, fire equipment, 

29 automotive parts, and wire shelving), a trucking company, a defense contractor, a distribution 

30 center for a retailer (K-Mart), and a customer-support center for a wireless telephone company. 

31 Citrus County’s largest employer is PEF’s CREC. Other large employers in Citrus County 

32 include two hospitals, a boat manufacturer, the county school district, county sheriff’s 

33 department, two correctional facilities, a business services firm, and a business consulting firm. 

34 Levy County’s largest employer is the county school board. Other large employers include two 

35 construction companies with a total of about 200 employees, a large retailer (Wal-Mart), two 

36 manufacturers (of boats and vacuum fittings), a healthcare center, an electric utility (Central 

37 Florida Electric Co-op), and a financial holding company (PEF 2009a, which derived data from 

38 the Florida Enterprise website, county profile pages). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-132 August 2010 

1 Table G-5 shows employment and earnings for the region and three counties. Across 1990, 

2 2000, and 2005, construction accounted for roughly 7 to 12 percent of the employment for the 

3 region and three counties, slightly less in the region and more in Citrus County. In 2005, 

4 construction jobs made up about 10 percent of the jobs in Levy and Marion Counties and about 

5 12 percent of the jobs in Citrus County. Considering heavy and civil engineering construction 

6 employment specifically, a snapshot of a week in March 2007 shows about 580 employees in 

7 Citrus County, about 390 in Levy, and 1460 in Marion (USCB 2007a). While not all heavy and 

8 civil engineering construction is applicable to nuclear plant construction, and some special skills 

9 outside this classification will be needed, these numbers show the presence of local workers 

10 within the EIA who have skills and experience pertinent to the construction of the proposed LNP 

11 units. 

12 Heavy-construction trade categories that might support nuclear power plant construction include 

13 supervisors; boilermakers; brick and block masons; carpenters; construction laborers; 

14 electricians; lineworkers, insulation workers; ironworkers; millwrights; operating engineers and 

15 other construction equipment operators; paving, surfacing, and tamping equipment operators; 

16 plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters; and welders, cutters, and brazers. Not including 

17 assistants and general laborers, 66,200 employees in these trade groups were identified in the 

18 northeast Florida non-Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Gainesville, Ocala, and Tampa19 St. Petersburg-Clearwater Metropolitan Statistical Areas in 2007 (PEF 2009d, which derived 

20 data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics industry-specific occupational employment 

21 statistics for major trade groups within the North American Industry Classification System 

22 (NAICS) code 237, heavy and civil engineering construction (PEF 2009d). These four statistical 

23 areas include the 11 counties that fall totally or partly within a 50-mi radius of the LNP site, as 

24 well as adjacent counties. The review team concluded that these data indicate that there is a 

25 large pool of qualified workers from which the proposed project can draw. 

26 Table 2-21 and Table 2-22 show trends in employment and per capita income between 1995 

27 and 2005 in the EIA and the surrounding eight-county region. The EIA generally followed the 

28 overall regional trends of a slight decrease in unemployment and increase in per capita income. 

29 During the 1995-2005 period, per capita personal income in Florida increased 54.7 percent, 

30 from $23,014 to $35,605. 

31 2.5.2.2 Taxes 

32 This section discusses the sources and value of tax revenue that would potentially be affected 

33 by building and operating the proposed LNP. It considers sales taxes as well as county 

34 property taxes. 

35 The State of Florida collects no personal income tax, but does collect a 6-percent sales tax 

36 (FDOR 2010a). In Levy County, vendors collect a 1 percent surtax on each eligible purchase, 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-133 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-21. Regional Employment Trends 

County 

Workers 

Employed 

1995 

Workers 

Employed 

2005 

Percent 

Change in 

Workers 

Employed 

1995-2005(a)

Unemployment 

Rate 1995, % 

Unemployment 

Rate 2005, % 

Alachua 100,469 119,035 18.5 2.9 2.9 

Citrus 32,886 48,761 48.3 7.0 4.2 

Dixie 3791 5299 39.8 8.5 3.7 

Gilchrist 4209 7198 71.0 3.7 3.1 

Hernando 41,178 53,891 30.9 5.5 4.8 

Levy 12,142 15,829 30.4 4.8 3.7 

Marion 87,016 12,098 40.3 5.5 3.7 

Sumter 12,376 24,501 98.0 5.5 3.3 

Source: BLS 1995, 2005 

(a) Percent Change = 100 (x2-x1)/x1, where x2 > x1 (x = variable). 

2 

3 Table 2-22. Regional Per Capita Personal Income (Current Dollars) 

County 1995, $ 2005, $ 

Percent Change 

1995-2005(a)

Alachua 19,894 31,469 58.2 

Citrus 17,447 27,674 58.6 

Dixie 13,002 18,514 53.8 

Gilchrist 14,847 24,720 71.5 

Hernando 18,352 27,036 47.3 

Levy 15,121 24,121 59.5 

Marion 18,196 28,539 56.8 

Sumter 14,073 24,257 72.4 

Florida 23,014 35,605 54.7 

Source: BEA 2010 

(a) Percent Change = 100 (x2-x1)/x1, where x2 > x1 (x = variable). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-134 August 2010 

1 up to a maximum of $50, which the State distributes back to the county (Levy County 2009). 

2 Marion County and Citrus County have no surtax (FDOR 2010b). Florida taxes on gasoline and 

3 diesel fuel include statewide taxes of which 3 cents per gallon is returned to the county where it 

4 is collected, plus county local option taxes that range from 6 to 9 cents per gallon in the eight5 county region. Within the EIA, local option taxes are 6 cents for Citrus and Levy Counties and 7 

6 cents for Marion County (Florida Tax Watch 1999). 

7 Table 2-23 shows that Florida collected approximately $19.8 billion in sales tax revenues in 

8 fiscal year 2004−2005, with the eight counties within the 50-mi region responsible for 

9 approximately $712 million of this total. 

10 Table 2-23. Total Sales Taxes Collected in the Regional Counties for Fiscal Year 2004–2005 

County Total Sales Tax Collected, $ 

Alachua 211,972,872 

Citrus 86,021,682 

Dixie 4,881,881 

Gilchrist 3,717,928 

Hernando 89,629,394 

Levy 19,929,802 

Marion 259,007,200 

Sumter 36,909,950 

Total Region 712,070,709 

Florida 19,847,945,740 

Source: PEF 2009a, which derived data from the Florida 

Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Warrington 

College of Business, University of Florida, “Florida Statistical 

Abstract, 2006.” 

11 The State of Florida also collects a corporate income tax at the rate of 5.5 percent of Florida net 

12 income. If a corporation pays Federal alternative minimum tax, it must compute a Florida 

13 alternative minimum tax and pay either the latter or the Florida corporate income tax, whichever 

14 is greater. The State of Florida offers tax incentives (credit on sales or corporate income tax) to 

15 corporations that locate in designated enterprise zones, but PEF has determined that it does not 

16 qualify for such incentives, even though the LNP site falls within an enterprise zone (PEF 

17 2009a, which derived data from the Florida Department of Revenue). 

18 The proposed plant site in Levy County makes up the bulk of the property that was acquired for 

19 the proposed LNP. Hence of the EIA, Levy County would receive most of the property tax 

20 revenues resulting from the project. Table G-6 (PEF 2009a) provides information about tax 

21 revenues in the three counties. The discussion below rounds values from the table to the 

22 nearest million dollars. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-135 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Levy County reported $38 million in revenue in 2006, of which $18 million was from taxes. 

2 Intergovernmental revenue provided $10 million. Major Levy County expenditures were for 

3 public safety ($16 million), general government ($7 million), and transportation ($6 million). In 

4 Levy County, the millage rate applicable to the LNP site in 2008 was 15.78, but the use of the 

5 land for forest plantations in 2008 provided an agricultural exemption reducing the assessed 

6 value by 90 percent. The Levy County assessor speculated that the millage rate might rise in 

7 response to lower property values observed in 2008 (NRC 2009b). 

8 Citrus County revenues in 2006 were $181 million, with ad valorem (property) taxes accounting 

9 for $67 million and intergovernmental revenue for $23 million. Personal services ($57 million) 

10 and operating expenses ($51 million) were major expenditure categories. Property tax millage 

11 rates in 2008 ranged from 16.0852 and 16.1275 in unincorporated areas to 19.4286 in Crystal 

12 River and 21.0955 in Inverness (Citrus County Tax Collector 2009). 

13 Marion County 2007 budget data show revenues of $567 million. Of this amount, $196 million 

14 was brought forward from the previous year. Property taxes accounted for $130 million and 

15 intergovernmental revenue for $48 million. Public safety ($154 million), general government 

16 ($119 million), and transportation ($100 million) were major expenditures. Marion County 

17 reduced its millage rates for county-wide assessments from 2002 to 2007 (from 6.04 to 

18 3.49 dollars per thousand dollars of assessed value), while county-wide property tax revenue 

19 increased over this period (Marion County Budget Department 2007). This illustrates the effect 

20 of property value increases on tax income. 

21 The Florida Department of Education calculates millage rates for each county’s contribution (the 

22 Required Local Effort) to address equalized education funding required by legislation passed in 

23 1973. The 2009 State average Required Local Effort millage rate was 5.288, with Levy and 

24 Marion Counties slightly below this (5.253 and 5.230, respectively) and Citrus County slightly 

25 above it (5.317) (FDOE 2009a). 

26 2.5.2.3 Transportation 

27 Bus 

28 The bus service closest to the LNP site is part of the Citrus County Transit System, which 

29 provides bus service in Citrus County. Transit stops are provided in Crystal River, Dunnellon, 

30 and Inverness, among other communities. SunTran and Marion County Transit Services 

31 provide public transportation for Ocala and disadvantaged citizens of Marion County, 

32 respectively. Greyhound Bus Line provides passenger and freight service between Levy, 

33 Marion, and Citrus Counties (PEF 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-136 August 2010 

1 Roads/Highways 

2 US-19 is the major highway near the LNP site; it serves as a major north-south route through 

3 Levy, Citrus, and Hernando Counties on the Gulf of Mexico, passing through Crystal River, 

4 Inglis, and Chiefland. Other north-south routes in the vicinity of the LNP site include CR-121 

5 connecting Williston to Gainesville; US-41, which traverses the cities of Dunnellon, Inverness, 

6 and Williston; and US-27, which connects Chiefland to Ocala through the city of Williston. 

7 Interstate 75 is east of the proposed LNP in the vicinity of Ocala and is the only interstate within 

8 50 mi of the LNP site. East-west connectors include CR-50 south of the LNP in Hernando 

9 County connecting Spring Hill to I-75 through Brooksville, and CR-464 and US-27. Access to 

10 the LNP site is via US-19 (west of the site), CR-336 (north and east of the site), and CR-40 

11 (south of the site). An access road from US-19 would be used by all workers to enter and leave 

12 the site. 

13 Traffic counts (average annual daily traffic [AADT]) within 5 mi of the proposed LNP ranged from 

14 1600 to 8600 vehicles per day in 2008 (FDOT 2008). US-19 in Levy County and US-27 through 

15 Williston are four-lane roads. All other county routes and highways are two-lane roads. The 

16 Levy County Comprehensive Plan indicated that some segments of CR-121 and US-41 are 

17 expected to meet or exceed capacity by 2010 and that four-lane widening may be needed on a 

18 number of road segments within 50 mi of the LNP site (Levy County 2008c). Another recent 

19 traffic study determined that intersections (US-19 and SR-121; US-19 and CR-40) and roadway 

20 segments (US-19 from SR-121 to the project site; US-19 from the project site to CR-40; US-121 

21 from US-19 to NW 27th Street; US-41 from SE 80th Street/NW 27th Street to CR-328, and 

22 CR-40 from US-19 to proposed location of heavy-haul driveway) near the LNP site are currently 

operating at acceptable LOSs (Kimley-Horn 2009).(a) 23 

24 With the exception of widening the US-19 bridge over the CFBC on US-19 just south of Inglis to 

25 four lanes, no other road improvements are scheduled in the vicinity of the LNP site that would 

26 affect traffic along area roadways during 2012–2018, the expected period for construction and 

27 preconstruction of the proposed LNP. A northward expansion of the Suncoast Parkway into 

28 Citrus County could be completed before or soon after the proposed LNP units become 

29 operational, but it is not expected to be completed in time to affect conditions during the 

30 construction and preconstruction of the LNP site. 

31 The review team’s analysis draws on a traffic study conducted to determine the impacts of the 

32 proposed LNP project on the surrounding road network (Kimley-Horn 2009). The Kimley-Horn 

33 (KH) study considered the roads likely to be used to transport construction materials and 

34 equipment to the LNP site and to transport commuting workers to and from the site. The 

35 KH study used AADT counts from 2007 from FDOT and daily counts collected in 2008 by Lincks 

36 and Associates to establish existing LOSs along the segments and intersections of concern. 

 

(a) LOS categories range from “A” (free flow) to “F” (stop and go traffic). 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-137 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 US-19 is a four-lane divided highway with an LOS standard of “B.” SR-121, CR-40, and US-41 

2 are all two-lane undivided facilities with LOS standards of “C.” The KH study found that all were 

3 operating within an acceptable LOS performance standard during the peak hours examined. 

4 Railroad 

5 There is no railroad access to the site. CSX Corporation operates the only active railroad line 

6 within the 10-mi vicinity of the LNP site. This railroad line runs from the existing CREC through 

7 Dunnellon, and heads in a northeasterly direction toward Jacksonville, Florida. 

8 2.5.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation 

9 The LNP site is characterized by forested land and wetlands surrounded by upland areas. 

10 Forested areas are primarily densely planted pine and are managed for timber extraction. 

11 Cypress swamps exist in and around the site and rural, low-density residential development 

12 characterizes the area surrounding the site, but not within the site. 

13 Within the region, there are 29 State parks, as well as forests, reserves, trails, conservation 

14 areas, and marinas (see Table 2-24 and Table 2-25). The State parks closest to the LNP site 

15 are Goethe State Forest and Crystal River Preserve State Park. Goethe State Forest offers 

16 hunting in some areas in addition to hiking, wildlife viewing, camping, and other opportunities. 

17 Hunting quotas are in place to limit the number of hunters during specific hunt-types 

18 (e.g., muzzleloading, rifle, bow) ranging from 130 to 300 per type. Statistics for 2006–2007 

19 hunting reflect usage at three-quarters or less of quota levels. Crystal River Preserve State 

20 Park is located along the Florida Gulf Coast and offers bicycle and walking trails, fishing, and 

21 waterbodies for canoeing and kayaking (PEF 2009a). 

22 Other popular recreational resources within the region include the Withlacoochee State Forest 

23 located south of the LNP site in Citrus County. The Ocala National Forest, located east of the 

24 LNP site with 383,220 ac, is more than twice the size of the Withlacoochee State Forest 

25 (157,479 ac) and boasts more visitors each year than any other national forest in Florida. 

26 Fanning Springs State Park is located on the Suwannee River northwest of the LNP site and is 

27 popular because it houses one of Florida’s 33 “first-magnitude springs,” meaning it discharges 

at least 100 ft3 28 of water per second or roughly 64.6 Mgd. The Homosassa Springs Wildlife State 

29 Park, located just south of the Crystal River Preserve State Park, is also a popular recreation 

30 destination for viewing wildlife, including endangered species. The Marjorie Harris Carr Cross31 Florida Greenway is located south of the LNP site on the border of Citrus and Levy Counties 

32 along the St. John’s River and offers hiking trails, horse use, bicycling, boating, and other water 

33 activities along a 110-mi corridor. Devils’ Den and Blue Grotto are two warm-water springs and 

34 underground caverns located in Levy County, northeast of the site in the city of Williston. The 

35 caverns are open to certified divers (PEF 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-138 August 2010 

1 Table 2-24. Recreational Areas Within 50 Mi of the LNP site

Area 

Average 

Daily 

Attendance 

Daily 

Capacity 

Average 

Percent 

Use 

Projected 

Capacity 

Approximate 

Distance and 

Direction to LNP 

Cedar Key Museum State Park 56 884 6.3 908 42.3 km (26.3 mi) E 

Cedar Key Scrub State Park 46 216 21.3 352 37.5 km (23.3 mi) SE 

Crystal River Archaeological State 

Park 

52 488 10.7 588 18.2 km (11.3 mi) N 

Crystal River Preserve State Park 748 NA NA NA 9.0 km (5.6 mi) NE 

Dade Battlefield Historic State Park 51 980 5.2 980 66.5 km (41.3 mi) NW 

Devil’s Millhopper State Park 122 480 25.4 480 73.2 km (45.5 mi) S 

Dudley Farm Historic State Park 44 260 16.9 260 64.8 km (40.3 mi) S 

Fanning Springs State Park 770 1010 76.2 1318 63.9 km (39.7 mi) SE 

Fort Cooper State Park 68 1018 6.7 1302 41.3 km (25.7 mi) NW 

Goethe State Forest NA NA NA NA 2.6 km (1.6 mi) S 

Homosassa Springs Wildlife State 

Park 

895 6464 13.8 6464 30.1 km (18.7 mi) N 

Lake Griffin State Park 97 622 15.6 904 73.7 km (45.8 mi) W 

Manatee Springs State Park 367 2536 14.5 2544 55.8 km (34.7 mi) SE 

Marjorie Harris Cross Carr Florida 

Greenway 

82(a) NA NA NA NA 

Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Historic 

State Park 

55 120 45.8 120 63.2 km (39.3 mi) SW 

Ocala National Forest NA NA NA NA 63.7 km (39.6 mi) W 

Paynes Prairie Preserve State Park 533 2820 18.9 2850 57.3 km (35.6 mi) SW 

Rainbow Springs State Park 541 1775 30.5 1835 16.9 km (10.5 mi) W 

San Felasco Hammock Preserve 

State Park 

157 816 19.2 1616 71.6 km (44.5 mi) S 

Silver River State Park 629 1074 58.6 1602 56.7 km (35.2 mi) W 

Wacasassa Bay State Park 72 208 34.6 280 9.5 km (5.9 mi) E 

Withlacoochee State Forest 1869 NA NA NA 22.5 km (14.0 mi) W 

Yulee Sugar Mill Ruins Historic State 

Park 

87 288 30.2 288 32.1 km (20.0 mi) N 

Total 7346 22,059 25.0 24,691 

Source: PEF 2009a, which derived data from individual park unit management plans and websites from Florida 

Department Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks; and the Goethe State Forest website from 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 

(a) Attendance reported for the portion of the greenway to the west of Lake Rousseau. 

NA = Data not available (due to open access in these recreation areas, capacity information is unavailable). 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-139 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-25. Total Trail Distances in the Region 

County 

Trail Distances (mi)(a)

Land Trails Water Trails 

Levy 117.14 1.73 

Citrus 164.5 33.89 

Marion 270.95 16.1(b)

Alachua 110.42 0 

Dixie 18.2 32.2 

Gilchrist 11.14 45.65(c)

Hernando 101.82 24.1 

Lake 9.81 0 

Pasco 11.1 1.06 

Sumter 51.9 40.03(d)

(a) Source: PEF 2009a, which derived data from the Florida Geographic Data Library, 2007. 

(b) Trail is the border between Marion and Citrus Counties. 

(c) 16.94 mi of total also borders Dixie County and 28.71 mi of total also borders Sumter County. 

(d) 28.71 mi of total also borders Gilchrist County and 11.32 mi of total also borders Hernando County. 

2 There are 35 marinas and 512 recreational vehicle (RV) parks with almost 22,000 hookups in 

3 the EIA. Recreational land trails total 867 mi in the 11 counties, 553 mi of which are in the EIA. 

4 The RV parks offer places where incoming construction workers might stay. Table 2-26 lists the 

5 RV parks in the region and their total capacities. Marion and Citrus Counties have the largest 

6 number of RV parks in the 50 mi, or 167 and 86, respectively (PEF 2009a). 

7 Table 2-26. Mobile Home and RV Parks in the Region 

County Total Number Total Capacity 

Levy 35 1752 

Citrus 86 6008 

Marion 167 14,095 

Alachua 29 3244 

Dixie 9 276 

Gilchrist 4 244 

Hernando 43 5310 

Lake 33 7105 

Pasco 46 4292 

Putnam 1 91 

Sumter 59 5445 

Total 512 47,862 

Source: PEF 2009a, which derived data from the Florida Geographic Library. 

8 Figure 2-23 and Figure 2-24 show the locations of the regional parks, recreation areas, 

9 conservation areas, and trails within the region. 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-140 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-23. Regional Parks and Recreational Areas (PEF 2009a) 2 
August 2010 2-141 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-24. Regional Recreational Trails (PEF 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-142 August 2010 

1 2.5.2.5 Housing 

2 Existing housing patterns follow development patterns within 50 mi of the site, with residential 

3 areas clustered within town and city limits and scattered large-lot development occurring in the 

4 surrounding county area, and linearly along transportation corridors. Levy County has fewer 

5 housing options than Marion and Citrus Counties. Mobile homes are a primary housing type 

6 within the EIA, especially within Levy County, where they account for 70 percent of all dwelling 

7 units, according to Levy County planning staff. Near the site, residential options include 

8 neighborhoods within Yankeetown, Inglis, Dunnellon, and Crystal River, as well as development 

9 along US-19 in the vicinity of the CFBC. 

10 

11 Housing stock and availability in the EIA and the region are presented in Table 2-27. The data 

12 in Table 2-27 came from the 2000 U.S. Census, which the review team recognized as an older 

13 source of information than other housing data relied upon in PEF’s ER. However, the 2000 

14 census data offer a greater level of detail than more recent updates and therefore the review 

15 team relied upon the 2000 Census for this analysis. The review team compared the 2000 U.S. 

16 Census data to a later study of housing between 2005 and 2007 also performed by the USCB 

17 (2007b, c, d) and determined there was no statistical difference between the two sources. 

18 Consequently, for comparative purposes between the ER and the EIS, the review team 

19 accepted the ER’s data for Table 2-27 without update. 

20 Table 2-27. Regional Housing Stock in 2000 

County 

Total 

Housing 

Units 

Number 

Vacant 

Percent 

Vacant 

Number 

OwnerOccupied 

Number 

RenterOccupied 

Percent 

Renter 

Occupied 

Levy 16,570 2703 16.3 11,591 2276 16.4 

Marion 22,663 15,908 13.0 85,183 21,572 20.2 

Citrus 62,204 9,570 15.4 45,041 7,593 14.4 

Alachua 95,113 7,604 8.0 8,085 39,424 45.1 

Dixie 7362 2157 29.3 4498 707 9.6 

Gilchrist 5906 885 15.0 4331 690 11.7 

Hernando 62,727 7302 41.6 47,970 7456 13.5 

Lake 131,140 21,400 16.3 90,246 22,494 17.2 

Pasco 212,960 28,296 13.3 142,695 41,969 19.7 

Putnam 35,276 7664 21.7 20,903 6709 19.0 

Sumter 25,195 4416 17.5 17,972 2807 11.1 

Source: USCB 2000 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-143 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The 2000 U.S. Census data indicate that housing units in Levy County were primarily owner2 occupied including those in towns within 10 mi of the LNP site (Inglis and Yankeetown). The 

3 16-percent vacancy rate in Levy County was comparable to the State vacancy rate of 

4 16.7 percent. Marion and Citrus Counties had similar vacancy rates. In 2000, rental units made 

5 up nearly 30 percent of the total housing units in the cities of Dunnellon and Crystal River, a 

6 higher percentage than in Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties as a whole. While the majority of 

7 houses in the housing stock within the EIA in 2000 were constructed after 1970 and most in 

8 Citrus County after 1980, the condition of the housing stock varied. Much of the Levy County 

9 housing stock was physically deteriorated. The lower-priced houses and available mobile 

10 homes in Citrus County were likely to be older and more deteriorated. A 1990 survey found 

11 about 5 percent substandard housing in Citrus County, with concentrations around Crystal 

12 River, Inverness, Homosassa, and Floral City; census data for unincorporated areas found 

13 about 3 percent substandard housing in 1990 and about 2 percent in 2000 (Citrus County 

14 2008). In Marion County, 4.4 percent of the residential units and 15 percent of the mobile 

15 homes were in substandard condition in 2000 (PEF 2009a, which derived data from the Marion 

16 County Community Development Block Grant Action Plan 2004/2005). 

17 A 2005–2007 U.S. Census housing study revealed that Levy County had a lower median home 

18 value ($106,400) that Citrus County ($141,100) and Marion County ($142,900) (USCB 2007b, c, 

19 d). 

20 Temporary housing options and capacity for 2006–2008 are listed in Table 2-28 and Table 2-29. 

21 Levy County offers four hotels with a total of 41 available rooms within 10 mi of the site, as well 

22 as 15 apartment buildings, 9 rental condominiums, 8 transient apartment buildings, and 35 RV 

23 parks. Marion and Citrus Counties offer substantially more short-term housing options. 

24 The review team determined through analysis of PEF’s ER and other data sources that neither 

25 Native American reservations nor any housing reserved for Native Americans exist within the 

26 EIA. 

27 2.5.2.6 Public Services 

28 This section provides information about services provided to the residents of the EIA to address 

29 public health and safety in the areas of water and wastewater, police service, fire-protection 

30 services, emergency response, and healthcare. Education is covered in Section 2.5.2.7. The 

31 review team examined PEF’s data and obtained additional information as needed for each of 

32 the service areas discussed below and determined that the information presented is reasonable. 

33 The review team also reviewed the methodology used by PEF to reach capacity conclusions 

34 and determined that PEF’s conclusions were also reasonable and that the review team could 

35 rely upon those conclusions in this EIS. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-144 August 2010 

1 Table 2-28. Regional Public Lodgings: Apartments, Rooming Houses, Rental Condominiums, 

2 and Transient Apartments in 2006 

 Apartment Building Rooming Houses 

Rental 

Condominiums(a)

Transient 

Apartment 

Buildings(b) 

County Number Unit Number Unit Number Unit Number Unit 

Levy 15 312 1 3 9 118 8 40 

Marion 136 7906 0 0 6 100 10 50 

Citrus 31 1001 2 9 5 140 11 117 

Alachua 394 27,365 3 71 0 0 6 134 

Dixie 1 32 1 16 0 0 2 16 

Gilchrist 2 60 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Hernando 55 2270 0 0 0 0 4 25 

Lake 173 8387 5 45 664 1391 9 121 

Pasco 149 10,717 2 35 79 910 7 87 

Putnam 33 1304 2 33 1 23 1 11 

Sumter 16 467 0 0 13 803 4 24 

Source: PEF 2009a, which derived data from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Warrington College 

of Business, University of Florida, “Florida Statistical Abstract, 2006.” 

(a) Rental condominiums include resort condominiums and resort dwellings. 

(b) Transient apartment buildings are those which rent for 6 months or less (excludes 270 bed and breakfast 

facilities with 1812 units). 

3 Table 2-29. Hotels Within 10 Mi of the LNP Site in 2008 

County Total Hotels Total Rooms Available 

Levy 4 41 

Citrus 3 208 

Marion 3 55 

Source: PEF 2009a, which derived data from Google maps and hotel websites. 

4 Water Supply 

5 The review team obtained information about Levy County water supply from supporting data 

6 and analyses compiled in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which is still the current supporting 

7 document for the infrastructure chapter of the Levy County Comprehensive Plan (Levy County 

8 2008a). Because Levy County bases its current planning efforts on these data and analyses, 

9 the review team considered them as a starting point in its own analysis presented below. Most 

10 Levy County residents obtain potable water from private wells, although small treatment 

11 facilities serve some residential areas, recreation areas, and commercial facilities. Based on 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-145 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 data for public and private wells permitted by the two water-management districts that serve the 

2 county – SWFWMD and Suwanee River Water Management District (SRWMD – Levy County 

3 estimated a total permitted average daily pumpage of 34 Mgd, with maximum permitted daily 

4 pumpage of 182 Mgd. These permitted uses are lower than estimates of actual use. The 

5 primary water use was agricultural. Estimates from the two water districts for 1985–1990 show 

6 total estimated water withdrawals of approximately 18 Mgd, with approximately 15 Mgd 

7 agricultural, 2 Mgd domestic, and 1 Mgd for small public treatment facilities (PEF 2009a; 

8 SWFWMD 2005, 2006, and 2008; Levy County 2008a, c; SRWMD 2004.) 

9 The county’s supporting analysis provided a forecast of residential water consumption from 

10 1995 through 2020 using projected population estimates and a per capita consumption of 

11 150 gpd in 1995 that decreased to 134 gpd in 2020. Results from the analysis showed an 

12 increase in projected residential consumption from an estimated 4.34 Mgd in 1995 to 5.53 Mgd 

13 in 2020. The analysis applied the same percentage increase to agricultural water use as it 

14 projected for residential use, projecting about 20 Mgd for 2020 for a total of about a 25.5-Mgd 

15 withdrawal in 2020. 

16 The analysis evaluated Levy County capacity by considering the relationship between projected 

17 groundwater withdrawals and the 109 Mgd daily aquifer recharge assumed for the county, 

18 finding ample capacity in projected withdrawal of less than one quarter of the daily recharge. 

19 The analysts recommended that the Board of Commissioners focus on control of development 

20 into unincorporated areas, coordinating with existing cities to allow the Board to extend 

21 centralized water systems into unincorporated areas. They noted that existing municipal 

22 systems in 1989 had surplus water-treatment capacity. The analysts also recommended that 

23 the Board consider requiring a central water system for any planned major development (PEF 

24 2009a; SWFWMD 2005, 2006, and 2008; Levy County 2008a, c; SRWMD 2004.) 

25 The review team applied Levy County’s forecast method using more current population figures 

26 and projections from Table 2-16. Because the supporting analysis did not provide a basis for 

27 reduced consumption estimates over time, the review team retained the 150-gpd per capita 

28 estimate throughout the projection period. The review team also retained the assumption that 

29 agricultural water use would remain about five times that of residential use, as it was in 1985–

30 1990. Using this approach, the review team projected Levy County needs for residential, 

31 agricultural, and total water as listed in Table 2-30. 

32 Using the approach of the analysis supporting the Levy County comprehensive plan, these 

33 projections indicate ample water supply in 2020, with withdrawals projected at less than half of 

34 the daily recharge to the aquifer in the county. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-146 August 2010 

1 Table 2-30. Projected Levy County Water Demand from 2000–2020 

Year Population 

Residential Consumption 

at 150 gpd/per person 

(Mgd) 

Agricultural 

Consumption at 5 × 

Residential (Mgd) 

Total 

Consumption 

(Mgd) 

2000 34,450 5.17 25.84 31.01 

2005 37,985 5.70 28.49 34.19 

2010 42,411 6.36 31.81 38.17 

2015 46,466 6.97 34.85 41.82 

2020 50,271 7.54 37.70 45.24 

Sources: PEF 2000a, based on BEBR population forecasts; Levy County 2008a, c; SWFWMD 2005, 2006 and 2008; 

SRWMD 2004. 

2 The review team obtained information about Marion County water supply from the potable-water 

3 subelement of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan (Marion County 2008), the 2006 

4 Regional Water Supply Plan of the SWFWMD (SWFWMD 2006), the 2003 Water Supply 

5 Assessment, and the 2005 District Water Supply Plan of the St. Johns River Water 

6 Management District (SJRWMD 2006a, b). Marion County owns 41 water facilities and has 

7 interlocal agreements with municipalities and franchise agreements with publicly and privately 

8 owned public water systems to supply water to its residents. The county projects future needs 

9 for water facilities based on its level of service standard of 150 gallons per person per day, with 

10 nonresidential demand projected to be 2750 gallons per acre per day. Table 2-31 shows 

11 estimated and projected water usage for the county. 

12 Table 2-31. Projected Water Demand for Marion County from 2000–2025 

Year 2000(a) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Water Use, SJRWMD (Mgd) 45.85 41.84 45.30 48.75 52.21 55.67 

Water Use SWFWMD (Mgd) 14.73 19.259 22.163 24.854 27.355 29.578 

Total County Water Use (Mgd) 60.58 61.099 67.463 73.604 79.565 85.248 

Sources: SWFWMD 2006, SJRWMD 2006b, 

(a) The review team noted both districts used population estimates that included consideration of BEBR projections 

(the basis for Table 2-16 in this document), but used population estimates for 2000 that differed from the totals 

enumerated in the 2000 U.S. Census. Furthermore, SJRWMD developed its own model for population growth 

with the district (SJRWMD 2006a). 

13 The review team obtained information about Citrus County water supply from the 2006 regional 

14 water supply plan of the SWFWMD (SWFWMD 2006), which serves the entire county; and from 

15 the infrastructure chapter of the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan (Citrus County 2008). 

16 Historically, most county residents received water from private wells. By the 1980s, prompted 

17 by increasing saltwater intrusion into coastal groundwater supplies, the county enacted 

18 ordinances to promote establishment of centralized county water services, required that all new 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-147 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 potable water facilities be dedicated to the county, encouraged removal of potable-water wells in 

2 areas of saltwater intrusion, and required that all new developments connect to the county’s 

3 water system as soon as service was available. Citrus County relies on the assistance of the 

4 Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority and the SWFWMD to identify future water 

5 needs and supplies, conceptually, for a 20-year horizon. The SWFWMD estimated that 

6 approximately half of the domestic water supply for Citrus County for the year 2000 came from 

7 private wells. Regional public systems and community systems provided the rest. The water8 management district estimated a total withdrawal of approximately 19 Mgd in 2000 (SWFWMD 

9 2008). The district’s 2006 water-management plan forecasted the demands listed in Table 2-

10 32, applying per capita usage rates ranging from 108–234 gpd based on 2001 usage by 

11 different users. 

12 Table 2-32. Citrus County Forecast of Water Use 

Year 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Population(a) 128,331 135,774 150,888 164,913 177,709 188,969 

Water Demand (Mgd) 19.132 20.226 22.495 24.586 26.494 28.173 

Source: SWFWMD 2006 

(a) The review team noted that the population estimates are higher than those provided in Table 2-16, although both 

tables were based on BEBR projections; SWFMD estimated a higher population for year 2000 (128,331) than 

was subsequently enumerated in the 2000 U.S. Census. 

13 Wastewater Treatment 

14 The review team obtained information about wastewater treatment in Levy County from the 

15 county comprehensive plan (Levy County 2008a, c). Over 75 percent of Levy County residents 

16 use septic systems for wastewater. Chiefland, Fanning Springs, the Yankeetown school, and a 

17 development in Yankeetown have each applied for a permit to construct a wastewater-treatment 

18 facility, with applications under review with FDEP in September 2009 (FDEP 2009j). 

19 Levy County requirements for septic tank installation are consistent with or more stringent than 

20 State law. The county requires a minimum 1-ac lot for subdivisions served by private water 

21 systems and half-acre lots for subdivisions served by a community water system. The 

22 supporting data and analysis for the comprehensive plan estimated that approximately 

23 18 percent of septic capacity to treat wastewater was being used by the population of 

24 unincorporated Levy County in 1990, assuming 75 gpd of wastewater generated per capita. 

25 Assuming that 60 percent of the county population will reside in unincorporated areas and using 

26 the 75-gpd wastewater-generation rate, the analysis provides estimated and projected figures 

27 for wastewater generation in unincorporated areas as shown in Table 2-33. The county does 

28 not have plans for a county sewage-treatment system, based on the assumption that most 

29 development will continue to be sparse in unincorporated areas and that local municipalities will 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-148 August 2010 

1 Table 2-33. Estimated Future Raw Sewage Output in Levy County 

Year 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 

Levy County Population 25,000 27,200 29,000 32,200 35,700 

Sewage generated in unincorporated Levy County (Mgd) 1.125 1.224 1.305 1.449 1.606 

Source: Levy County 2008c. 

(a) The review team noted that the population estimates are lower than those provided in Table 2-16; they were 

made before the 2000 U.S. Census. 

2 extend sewer services out to industrial, commercial, and residential uses associated with 

3 municipal growth. 

4 The review team obtained information about wastewater treatment in Citrus County from the 

5 county comprehensive plan (Citrus County 2008). Citrus County has five regional wastewater 

6 facilities owned by the county and a sixth owned and operated by a private utility company, 

7 Rolling Oaks. In addition, the cities of Crystal River and Inverness operate regional facilities. 

8 With the exception of the Rolling Oaks facility, for which there are plans for upgrades and 

9 eventual replacement the other facilities are expected to be operational for 25 to 30 years. 

10 Based on a 2000 wastewater facilities plan, Citrus County estimated the 2000 flow of 

11 wastewater in the system of regional facilities to be 0.353 Mgd. Citrus County projects future 

12 needs based on its level of service standard of 75 gpd per capita average (125 gpd peak) and 

13 0.16 gpd per building square foot (0.30 gpd peak). To meet its goal of expanding the 

14 wastewater-treatment system to serve new developments within designated service areas, the 

15 county forecasted 2020 wastewater flows to be about 2.76 Mgd. The review team noted that 

16 appears to be sufficient capacity available either existing or planned to meet the 2020 forecast. 

17 The review team obtained information about Marion County wastewater treatment from the 

18 sanitary sewer subelement of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan (Marion County 2008) 

19 from the Marion County Utilities Department (Marion County 2009), from the City of Dunnellon 

20 Comprehensive Plan (Dunnellon 2009), and from the Ocala/Marion County Economic 

21 Development Corporation (Ocala EDC 2009). Marion County projects future needs for 

22 wastewater facilities based on its LOS standard of 110 gallons per person per day, with 

23 commercial and industrial demand at 2000 gallons per acre per day. Marion County Utilities 

24 currently (figures reported on web pages in 2009) operates 11 wastewater-treatment facilities 

25 with a combined capacity of 4.25 Mgd and annual use of 2.164 Mgd; many of the plants are 

26 expandable. The city of Ocala operates three plants, with a combined capacity of 12.96 Mgd 

27 and annual use of 5.7 Mgd, and existing plants can be expanded to add an additional 5.5 Mgd 

28 for a total of about 18 Mgd. The city of Dunnellon wastewater-treatment plant has a capacity of 

29 0.250 Mgd and current average daily flow of 0.115 Mgd. Considering projected population 

30 increases shown through 2025 in Table 2-16, which involve less than a doubling of the Marion 

31 County population, the review team interpreted these data to indicate that existing treatment 

32 facilities would have capacity to serve the added population. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-149 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Police Services 

2 Law enforcement within the EIA is provided by 883 full-time law enforcement officers and 

3 10 part-time officers employed by the Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties sheriff’s offices and 

4 police departments of Inglis, Williston, Chiefland, and Cedar Key in Levy County; Crystal River 

5 in Citrus County; and Dunnellon, Belleview, and Ocala in Marion County. The closest police 

6 stations to the LNP site are in Inglis and Dunnellon. Inglis and Dunnellon are approximately 4.1 

7 mi and 18 mi from the site by road, respectively (Kimley-Horn 2009). 

8 Inglis and Williston police departments work with the Levy County Sheriff’s Office in providing 

9 law enforcement. Yankeetown, for example, does not have its own police force, and instead 

10 relies on the county, which is assisted by the Inglis and Williston police officers. Citrus County 

11 provides emergency evacuations and police functions in a number of smaller communities. 

12 Crystal River has one deputy assigned full time to the CREC and is otherwise served by the 

13 Citrus County Sheriff’s Office. The Dunnellon Police Department indicated that it is at capacity 

14 for the provision of police support to its municipality with 15 sworn officers, including the chief 

15 (NRC 2009b; CH2M Hill 2009a) based on interviews with sheriff and police department staff. 

16 Fire Department Services 

17 Fire-fighting services within the EIA are provided by 6 county and 8 municipal fire stations in 

18 Levy County with 8 paid firefighters and 183 volunteer firefighters; 1 municipal and 23 county 

19 fire stations in Citrus County with 29 paid firefighters and 98 volunteer firefighters; and 27 fire 

20 stations in Marion County with 351 paid firefighters and 100 volunteer firefighters. The Inglis 

21 Fire Department (volunteer) and Dunnellon Fire Department (staffed) are closest to the LNP 

22 site. Inglis and Dunnellon are approximately 4.1 mi and 18 mi by road from the site, 

23 respectively. Local fire-protection services in Levy County are currently insufficient according to 

24 county officials. Future expansion and facility upgrades may be needed to accommodate future 

25 population growth (NRC 2009b; PEF 2009a), based on interviews with county and fire 

26 department staff (PEF 2009d; Kimley-Horn 2009). 

27 Emergency Management 

28 Levy County Emergency Management uses the 14 fire stations within the county, police support 

29 provided by the Levy County Sheriff’s Office, the Nature Coast Regional Hospital for immediate 

30 care needs, and Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinic and Shands Alachua General Hospital for 

31 major medical issues. Marion County Emergency Management uses the county fire, rescue, 

32 and sheriff’s departments as well as fire, rescue, and police resources from Dunnellon and 

33 Ocala; and West Marion Community Hospital, Ocala Regional Medical Center, and Munroe 

34 Regional Hospital for medical support. Citrus County Emergency Management Agency uses 

35 the Crystal River fire and police departments, Derosa Fire Station, Seven Rivers Regional 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-150 August 2010 

1 Medical Center, and Citrus Memorial Medical Center (PEF 2009a, based on interviews with 

2 county EMS staff; PEF 2009d). 

3 Healthcare Services

4 Hospitals in the region are listed in Table 2-34 and their locations are shown in Figure 2-25. 

5 There is one hospital in Levy County – Nature Coast Regional Hospital – about 24 mi from the 

6 LNP site. Patients from Levy County also use two hospitals in Alachua County, both about 

7 45 mi from the LNP site: Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinic and Shands Alachua General 

8 Hospital. There are three physicians and 40 beds (on average 15 occupied) at Nature Coast 

9 Hospital for immediate emergency care. The Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinic has 

10 634 beds (603-bed average occupancy), and Shands Alachua General Hospital has 262 beds 

11 (200-bed average occupancy). The two Shands hospitals within the three-county local area 

12 average 850 physicians to provide medical support. Hospital expansion and development plans 

13 include a cancer center at the Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinic (open as of 2010) and a 

14 proposed 60-bed hospital in Chiefland (at the fundraising stage in 2009). 

15 Within Marion County, three hospitals are located between 26 mi and 30 mi from the LNP site. 

16 West Marion Community Hospital with 70 beds (63-bed average occupancy) and Ocala 

17 Regional Medical Center with 200 beds (180-bed average occupancy) are part of the Marion 

18 Community Hospital system, which employs 390 physicians. Monroe Regional Hospital has 

19 421 beds (380-bed average occupancy) and 450 physicians. The Marion Community Hospital 

20 system has no immediate expansion plans and Monroe Regional Hospital has plans to add an 

21 additional 50 to 60 beds within the next 5 years. 

22 Citrus County is served by two medical facilities. Seven Rivers Regional Medical Center, the 

23 closest to the LNP site at 13.5 mi, has 85 physicians and 128 beds (124-bed average 

24 occupancy). Citrus Memorial Medical Center, 24 mi from the LNP site, has 247 physicians and 

25 198 beds (all occupied). Citrus Memorial Medical Center has plans to expand the emergency 

26 room and add additional beds, but no specific timeline for the expansion. The Seven Rivers 

27 plan in 2008 called for an addition of 16 beds, but instead they converted 16 existing beds for 

28 use for in-patient rehabilitation. 

29 Overall, as indicated in Table 2-34, 7 of the 14 hospitals in the region plan for expansions within 

30 the next 5 years. 

31 In discussions with public service providers, PEF obtained information about the adequacy of 

32 the capacity represented by the data provided above. PEF determined local fire, police, and 

33 emergency response services are adequate in Marion and Citrus Counties, but police services 

34 in Dunnellon (Marion County) are at capacity. PEF also concluded police and emergency 

35 response capabilities are adequate in Levy County, but fire-protection services are inadequate 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-151 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-34. Medical Facilities Within the Region 

Hospital Name (number 

corresponds with Figure 2-25) Phone Number Physicians Beds 

Occupancy 

of Beds Expansion 

Levy County 

1) Nature Coast Regional Hospital 352-528-2801 3 40 15 No current plans to 

expand. 

Citrus County 

2) Seven Rivers Regional Medical 

Center 

352-795-6560 85 128 124 Add an additional 

16 beds within 1 year. 

3) Citrus Memorial Hospital 352-726-1551 237 198 198 Plans to expand the 

emergency room. 

Marion County 

4) Munroe Regional Medical 

Center 

352-351-7200 450 421 380 Add 50 to 60 beds 

within the next 5 years. 

5) West Marion Community 

Hospital 

352-291-3000 390(a) 70 63 No current plans to 

expand. 

6) Ocala Regional Medical Center 352-291-3000 390(a) 200 180 No current plans to 

expand. 

Lake County 

7) Leesburg Regional Hospital 352-323-5568 296 309 226 No current plans to 

expand. 

8) The Villages Regional Medical 

Center 

352-323-5568 244 198 119 Currently expanding 

with an additional 

60 beds. 

Alachua County 

9) North Florida Regional Medical 

Center 

352-333-4970 400 325 236 New cancer center 

10) Malcolm Randall VA Medical 

Center 

352-373-8040 430 285 285 Plan to expand with 

more beds within 

5 years. 

11) Shands Teaching Hospital and 

Clinic 

919-265-0373 850(b) 634 600 New cancer center 

12) Shands Alachua General 

Hospital 

352-372-4321 850(b) 262 200 No current plans to 

expand. 

Hernando County 

13) Spring Hill Regional Hospital 352-688-8200 389(c) 124 77 No current plans to 

expand. 

14) Brooksville Regional Hospital 352-796-5111 389(c) 120 80 No current plans to 

expand. 

15) Oak Hill Hospital 352-596-6632 300 204 NA Expansion in 2 to 

3 years. 

16) Regional Medical Center 

Bayonet Point 

727-819-2929 340 300 240 No current plans to 

expand. 

Source: PEF 2009a, with data from interviews with hospitals and county health and EMS departments, as documented in PEF 

2009d. 

(a) Total includes both West Marion Community Hospital and Ocala Regional Medical Center. 

(b) Total includes both Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinic and Shands Alachua General Hospital. 

(c) Total includes both Spring Hill Regional Hospital and Brooksville Regional Hospital. 

(d) Average occupancy percentage excludes Oak Hill Hospital because information was unavailable. 

NA = Not applicable. 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-152 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-25. Regional Healthcare Services (PEF 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-153 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 for current needs. PEF found medical capacity to be adequate in all three counties. Across the 

2 region, the existing hospitals have about 86 percent occupancy rate. 

3 2.5.2.7 Education 

4 The EIA includes 73 primary and secondary schools with a total enrollment for school year 

5 2007−2008 of approximately 65,938 students. “Capacity” is measured in relationship to the 

6 availability of fixed classrooms and student stations within classrooms. To meet the 

7 concurrency requirement in State law, counties set LOS capacity targets, generally 100 percent 

8 or more, that require a developer to pay a proportionate fair share for the quantity of students 

9 attributable to its project (NRC 2009b). All EIA school districts use mobile classrooms to 

10 accommodate additional students when specific schools reach capacity. According to school 

11 district officials, Levy County schools were close to capacity in 2008, including the kindergarten 

12 through 8th grade (K-8) school at Yankeetown, the school closest to the LNP site; Levy high 

13 school students are bused to Dunnellon or Crystal River (NRC 2009b). Citrus County had three 

14 schools over capacity in 2008–2009, 14 under capacity, and projects 3 schools over capacity in 

15 school year 2011–2012 (Citrus County School District 2008). Marion County had 18 primary 

16 and secondary schools over capacity in 2008–2009 and projects 14 schools over capacity when 

17 the current 5-year workplan has been implemented in 2012–2013 (Marion County Schools 

18 2009). Marion County’s Dunnellon High School and elementary school are crowded; both were 

19 over capacity in 2008–2009 and are expected to remain over capacity through the 5-year 

20 planning period. Dunnellon Middle school has available capacity; and there is available 

21 capacity in schools further north in the county (NRC 2009b). 

22 In planning for future needs, school districts estimate the number of students per dwelling unit. 

23 Table 2-35 provides the estimates used by EIA school districts for households (Levy and Citrus 

24 Counties) and single-family dwellings (Marion County). 

25 Table 2-35. Estimated Public School Students per Household 

 Elementary 

School Students 

Middle School 

Students 

High School 

Students 

Total 

Students 

Levy County 0.2016 0.105 0.1134 0.42 

Marion County 0.158 0.078 0.092 0.328 

Citrus County 0.115 0.060 0.069 0.249 

Sources: Henderson, Young & Company 2006; Citrus County et al. 2008; Levy County School District 2009.

26 The State Constitution Amendment of Section 1, Article IX (State of Florida 2002) mandates 

27 smaller student-to-teacher ratios from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade to be implemented 

28 by the beginning of the 2010−2011 school year. Schools can use mobile classrooms to comply 

29 with the student-teacher ratio requirements. Information for the 2007-2008 school year shows 

30 Levy County in compliance with the required 2007-2008 ratios at all schools; Citrus County out 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-154 August 2010 

1 of compliance at two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school; and Marion 

2 County out of compliance at two elementary schools and two middle schools (FDOE 2009b). 

3 There are four community college organizations and two 4-year colleges and universities 

4 located within the region, but none is located within 10 mi of the LNP site. These schools 

5 include Central Florida Community College (Citrus, Hampton, Levy, and Ocala campuses), 

6 Lake-Sumter Community College (Sumter campus), Pasco-Hernando Community College 

7 (North and Spring Hill campuses), Santa Fe Community College (Northwest, Blount, Davis, and 

8 Kilpatrick campuses), University of Florida (main campus at Gainesville), and Beacon College 

9 (main campus at Leesburg) (PEF 2009a). 

10 2.6 Environmental Justice 

11 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy established by Executive Order 12898 

12 (59 FR 7629) under which each Federal agency identifies and addresses, as appropriate, 

13 disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.(a) 14 The Council on Environmental 

15 Quality (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental justice (CEQ 1997). 

16 Although it is not subject to the Executive Order, the Commission has voluntarily committed to 

17 undertake environmental justice reviews. On August 24, 2004, the Commission issued its policy 

18 statement on the treatment of environmental justice matters in licensing actions (69 FR 52040). 

19 This section describes the existing demographic and geographic characteristics of the proposed 

20 site and its surrounding communities. It offers a general description of minority and low-income 

21 populations within the 50-mile region surrounding the site. The characterization in this section 

22 forms the analytical baseline from which potential environmental justice effects would be 

23 determined. 

24 The racial population is expressed in terms of the number and/or percentage of people that are 

25 minorities in an area, and, in this discussion, the sum of the racial minority populations is 

26 referred to as the aggregate racial minority population. Persons of Hispanic/Latino origin are 

27 considered an ethnic minority and may be of any race. The review team did not include 

28 Hispanics in its aggregate race estimate because the Federal government considers race and 

29 Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts (USCB 2001). 

30 The review team reviewed the ER prepared by PEF and verified the data sources used in its 

31 preparation by examining cited references and by independently confirming data in discussions 

 

(a) Minority categories are defined as American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander; Black races; or Hispanic ethnicity; “other” may be considered a separate 

minority category. Low income refers to individuals living in households meeting the official poverty 

measure. To see the U.S. Census definition and values for 2000, visit the U.S. Census website at 

http://ask.census.gov/. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-155 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 with community members and public officials (NRC 2009b). The review team requested 

2 clarifications and additional information from PEF where needed to verify data in the ER. 

3 Unless otherwise specified in the sections below, the review team has drawn upon verified data 

4 from PEF (2009c, d, h). Where the review team used different analytical methods or additional 

5 information for its own analysis, the sections below include explanatory discussions and 

6 citations for additional sources. 

7 2.6.1 Methodology 

8 The review team first examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income 

9 populations within 50 mi of the LNP site, using a GIS and the 2000 U.S. Census to identify 

10 minority and low-income populations. The review team then verified its analysis by conducting 

11 field inquiries of numerous agencies and groups (see Appendix B for the list of organizations 

12 contacted). 

13 The first step in the review team’s environmental justice methodology is to examine each 

14 census block group that is fully or partially included within the 50-mi region to determine for 

15 each minority or low-income population whether it should be considered a population of interest. 

16 If either of the two criteria discussed below identifies a census block group, that census block 

17 group is considered a population of interest. The two criteria are whether 

18 • the demographic group exceeds 50 percent of the total population for the census block 

19 group, or 

20 • the demographic group is 20 percentage points (or more) greater than the same 

21 population’s percentage in the census block group’s state. 

22 The identification of census block groups that meet the above criteria is not sufficient for the 

23 review team to conclude that a disproportionately high and adverse impact exists. Likewise, the 

24 lack of census block groups meeting the above criterion cannot be construed as evidence of no 

25 disproportionate and adverse impacts. The review team also conducts an active public 

26 outreach and on-site investigation in the region of the proposed project to determine whether 

27 minority and low income populations may exist that were not identified in the census mapping 

28 analysis. To reach an environmental justice conclusion, starting with the identification of 

29 populations of interest, the review team must investigate all populations in greater detail to 

30 reveal key pathways that may have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on any unique 

31 characteristics or practices associated with a minority or low-income population. To determine 

32 whether disproportionately high and adverse effects may be present, the review team considers 

33 the following: 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-156 August 2010 

1 Health Considerations 

2 1. Are the radiological or other health effects significant or above generally accepted 

3 norms? 

4 2. Is the risk or rate of hazard significant and appreciably in excess of the general 

5 population? 

6 3. Do the radiological or other health effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or 

7 multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards? 

8 Environmental Considerations 

9 4. Is there an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and adversely 

10 affects a particular group? 

11 5. Are there any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or [are] 

12 likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population? 

13 6. Do the environment effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or multiple adverse 

14 exposure from environmental hazard? (NRC 2007c) 

15 If this investigation in greater detail does not yield any pathways that could lead to potentially 

16 high and adverse impacts on populations of interest, the review team may conclude that there 

17 are no disproportionately high and adverse affects. If, however, the review team finds any 

18 potentially disproportionate and adverse effects, the review team would fully characterize the 

19 nature and extent of the impact and consider possible mitigation measures that may be used to 

20 lessen it. The remainder of this section discusses the results of the search for potentially 

21 affected populations of interest. 

22 2.6.2 Analysis 

23 Drawing on data presented in Section 2.5.1, this section presents the USCB 2000 

24 demographics of the minority and low-income populations that reside within a 50-mi radius of 

25 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 (the region), including the three-county local area (Levy, Citrus, 

26 and Marion Counties). The consideration of a 50-mi comparative geographic area surrounding 

27 the LNP site, which includes all or portions of 11 counties, is based on the guidance provided by 

28 NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000). Figure 2-26 shows the counties within the region and their 

29 geographic relationship to the site. Levy and Citrus Counties are entirely within the region and 

30 more than three-quarters of Marion County falls within the region. 

31 2.6.2.1 Location of Minority and Low-Income Populations 

32 The analysis of the locations of minority and low-income populations within a 50-mi radius of 

33 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 was performed using the Environmental Systems Research 

Institute ArcMap® 34 GIS software and USCB’s Summary File 1 data and Topologically Integrated 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-157 Draft NUREG-1941 

Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) census block group boundaries from 2000.(a) 1 

2 The entire census block group was included in the analysis if any part of the block group was 

inside the 50-mi radius. The ArcMap® 3 GIS software and 2000 census data were then used to 

4 determine the minority and low-income characteristics by census block group within 50 mi of the 

5 LNP site. 

6 There are 536 census block groups wholly or partially within a 50-mi radius of the centerpoint at 

7 latitude 29.073598 and longitude -82.62078, the midpoint between proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 

8 (PEF 2009a, based on the methods described above). 

9 2.6.2.2 Minority Populations 

10 The racial population is expressed in terms of the number and/or percentage of people that are 

11 minorities in an area, and, in this discussion, the sum of the racial minority populations is 

12 referred to as the aggregate racial minority population. Persons of Hispanic/Latino origin are 

13 considered an ethnic minority and may be of any race including any one of the identified racial 

14 populations. The review team did not include Hispanics in its aggregate race estimate because 

15 the Federal government considers race and Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct 

16 concepts (USCB 2001). 

17 USCB 2000 data present the Florida population as containing the following: 

18 • 0.3 percent American Indian or Alaskan Native 

19 • 1.7 percent Asian 

20 • 0.05 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

21 • 14.6 percent Black or African American 

22 • 3.0 percent other single race 

23 • 2.4 percent multi-racial 

24 • 22.1 percent aggregate of minority races 

25 • 16.8 percent Hispanic ethnicity. 

26 This provides the following threshold values for the second (20-percent) criterion: 

27 • 20.3 percent American Indian or Alaskan Native 

28 • 21.7 percent Asian 

29 • 20.05 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

30 • 34.6 percent Black or African American 

31 • 23.0 percent other single race 

32 • 22.4 percent multi-racial 

33 

 

(a) A census block is the smallest geographic area for which the USCB collects and tabulates decennial 

census data. A block group is the next level above census blocks in the geographic hierarchy and is 

a subdivision of a census tract or block numbering area. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-158 August 2010 

1 • 42.1 percent aggregate of minority races 

2 • 36.8 percent Hispanic ethnicity. 

3 Figure 2-26 shows the census block groups in which the aggregate minority population meets at 

4 least one of the two significance criteria. Fifty-six census block groups within the 50-mi radius 

5 have aggregate minority populations that are 20 percent greater than the aggregate minority’s 

6 average in Florida. Of the 56 block groups, 44 have aggregate minority populations of 50 

7 percent or more. The closest minority census block group of interest is in Citrus County, about 

8 10 mi southeast of the LNP site. 

9 Figure 2-27 shows the census block groups in which the African-American population meets at 

10 least one of the two criteria. Sixty blocks within the 50-mi radius have African-American 

11 populations that are 20 percent greater than the Florida average; of these, 41 have African12 American populations of 50 percent or more. As the figure shows, the closest block group with 

13 a significant African-American population is the same census block group identified above, 

14 slightly south and east of the LNP site in Citrus County between Dunnellon and Citrus Springs. 

15 There are significant concentrations of African-American populations around the urban centers 

16 of Gainesville and Ocala, as well as in more rural areas in Levy, Marion, and Sumter Counties. 

17 Figure 2-28 shows the single census block group within the 50-mi radius in which the Hispanic 

18 ethnicity population meets at least one of the two criteria. This block group, in the far 

19 southeastern sector of the region near the Pasco and Hernando County lines, has a Hispanic 

20 ethnicity population that is more than 20 percent above the Florida average and also greater 

21 than 50 percent of the population of the block group. 

22 There are no census block groups in which the populations of any other racial or ethnic group 

23 meet either of the two criteria. The review team determined through analysis of PEF’s ER and 

24 other data sources that neither Native American reservations nor any housing reserved for 

25 Native Americans exist within the EIA. 

26 2.6.2.3 Low-Income Populations 

27 The Florida State average for individuals below poverty is 12.5 percent, based on 

28 2000 U.S. Census data for 1999 incomes. This provides 32.5 percent as the threshold value for 

29 the second (20 percent) criterion. 

30 Figure 2-29 shows the distribution of census block groups containing low-income populations of 

31 significance within the 50-mi radius. Forty-four census block groups have significant low- 
August 2010 2-159 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-26. Regional Minority Population (PEF 2009a) 2 3 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-160 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-27. Regional African-American Population (PEF 2009h) 2 
August 2010 2-161 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-28. Regional Hispanic Population (PEF 2009h) 2 
Draft NUREG-1941 2-162 August 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-29. Regional Low-Income Population (PEF 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-163 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 income populations; of these, 14 have 50 percent or more low-income individuals. The closest 

2 concentrations are around Otter Creek-Usher-Chiefland in Levy County, about 20 mi north of 

3 the site; and Ocala in Marion County, more than 30 mi from the site. The areas with 50 percent 

4 or more low-income individuals are primarily around Gainesville (Alachua County), with one 

5 block group in Lake County. 

6 

7 2.6.2.4 Communities with Unique Characteristics 

8 NRC’s environmental justice methodology includes an assessment of high-density communities 

9 and populations with unique characteristics. High-density communities are minority or low10 income “pockets” of populations that are not discerned by the census but that might suffer a 

11 disproportionately high and adverse impact from construction, preconstruction, or operation of a 

12 project. Examples of unique characteristics might include lack of vehicles, sensitivity to noise, 

13 proximity to a source of impacts, or exceptional dependence on subsistence resources, but 

14 such unique characteristics need to be demonstrably present in the population and relevant to 

15 the potential environmental impacts of the plant. If the impacts from the proposed action appear 

16 to affect an identified minority or low-income population more than the general population 

17 because of one of these or other unique characteristics, then a determination is made whether 

18 the impact is disproportionate when compared to the general population. 

19 High-Density Communities 

20 The review team met with community members and public officials and made field observations 

21 to investigate whether there were such high-density communities within the vicinity of the LNP 

22 site. The investigations indicated that there is little settlement near the proposed plant site; and 

23 the income and racial characteristics of those near the site are not different from those away 

24 from it. Based on this information, the review team concluded that there are no minority or low25 income pockets that were not captured by the census block group analysis. 

26 Subsistence 

27 Common subsistence behaviors include gardening, gathering plants, fishing, and hunting. 

28 Natural resources may be used to supplement store-bought foodstuffs or medications for 

29 budgetary purposes, or for ceremonial and traditional cultural purposes. Subsistence 

30 information is often site-specific and it can be difficult to differentiate between the subsistence 

31 and recreational uses of natural resources. In this section, the review team presents 

32 subsistence information in a qualitative manner, based on anecdotal information. 

33 Information about subsistence populations came from interviews with local officials and staff of 

34 economic impact area county health departments, school districts, and the Goethe State Forest, 

35 situated adjacent to the LNP site (NRC 2009b, PEF 2009a). None of these entities tracks 

36 subsistence users quantitatively, nor did any have information specific to the site. The Levy 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-164 August 2010 

1 County Health Department is aware that some county households rely on subsistence hunting 

2 or fishing. A Levy School District official noted that because clamming is an industry in Cedar 

3 Key, perhaps there is some subsistence consumption as well. Staffs of the Citrus County 

4 Women-Infant-Children (WIC) Program and the Nutrition Program estimate that about 

5 3000 women and children use the WIC program annually. Of these, perhaps 10 percent rely on 

6 subsistence fishing. While the local officials indicated that hunting of turkeys, wild hogs, and 

7 deer on timber lands (both in and out of the State forest) takes place, they were not able to 

8 supply the review team with an estimated level of subsistence use. 

9 Through its review of PEF’s ER, its own outreach and research, and scoping meeting 

10 comments, the review team identified no communities with unique characteristics other than 

11 subsistence that would make them susceptible to disproportionately high and adverse impacts.

12 2.6.3 Scoping and Outreach 

13 The review team interviewed local and county officials, business leaders, and interested 

14 members of communities within the EIA and assessed the potential for disproportionately high 

15 and adverse environmental effects on minority and low-income communities (NRC 2009b). In 

16 general, the information was consistent with data mapped using USCB information. 

17 Interviewees from Citrus County School District indicated that Citrus County has the lowest 

18 minority population (including Hispanic ethnicity) in the EIA. This is consistent with the mapped 

19 data. One school district official from Levy County said that Williston has a greater percentage 

20 of African Americans, while Bronson and Chiefland have a greater percentage of Hispanic 

21 ethnicity; and noted that minority households tend to be “mid-lower income.” School district 

22 officials reported that 48 percent of the students in Citrus County qualify for free or reduced 

23 lunch programs; and only two schools in Levy County do not qualify for Federal aid for free or 

24 reduced-cost lunch programs. Eligibility for these programs is based on household income. 

25 The review team issued an advanced notice of public hearings for EIS scoping purposes in 

26 accordance with NRC’s guidance (NRC 2007a). The review team had some response in its 

27 outreach effort to minority and low-income populations, as evidenced by public comments from 

28 African-American community members at the December 4, 2008 public meeting in Crystal 

29 River. Through the interviews and scoping meetings, the review team did not learn of any 

30 additional significant populations of minority or low-income persons not already identified 

31 through the USCB mapping exercise and personal interviews. 

32 2.6.4 Migrant Populations 

33 The USCB defines a migrant worker as an individual employed in the agricultural industry in a 

34 seasonal or temporary nature and who is required to be absent overnight from his or her 

35 permanent place of residence. The USDA 2002 Agricultural Census provides the following 

36 information about farms, workers, and use of migrant workers (USDA 2002). Levy County 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-165 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 reported 322 farms and 1013 workers; 8 farms used migrant labor. For Citrus County, 55 farms 

2 and 245 workers were reported; 1 farm employed migrant labor. Marion County reported 

3 771 farms, 3824 workers; 2 farms employed migrant labor. The review team was unable to 

4 identify a source that quantified the number of migrant workers by county, but reviewed the 

5 method used to allocate migrant workers in Table 2-20 and agrees with the estimates of 25, 5, 

6 and 10 migrant workers in Levy, Citrus, and Marion Counties, respectively. 

7 The LNP site and environs are used for tree plantations, not for crops harvested in patterns that 

8 attract migrant workers. 

9 One public official from Levy County noted that there are some transient farmworkers of 

10 Hispanic ethnicity, mostly in the Williston and Chiefland areas where peanuts and watermelon 

11 are grown (NRC 2009b). This is consistent with the USDA census data. 

12 2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary 

13 The review team found low-income, African-American, Hispanic, and aggregated minority 

14 populations that exceed the percentage criteria established for environmental justice analyses. 

15 The review team performed additional analyses to identify any potential communities with 

16 unique characteristics or practices that could lead to an environmental justice impact from the 

17 proposed site. The review team found that dependence on subsistence activities was the only 

18 such unique characteristic. As a result of these findings, the review team had to perform further 

19 studies before making a final environmental justice determination. These analyses can be 

20 found in Chapter 4 for construction and preconstruction impacts and in Chapter 5 for operational 

21 impacts. 

22 2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

23 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the review team has elected to use the process set forth in 

24 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 USC 4321, et seq.), to 

25 comply with the obligations imposed under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

26 (NHPA) (16 USC 470, et seq.). The review team determined that the direct effects Area of 

27 Potential Effect (APE) for the COL review is the area at the power plant site and the immediate 

28 environs that may be physically affected by land-disturbing activities associated with 

29 constructing and operating two new nuclear generating units. The indirect effects APE for the 

30 LNP site is the area that may be visually affected. The indirect effects APE is determined by the 

31 maximum distance from which the tallest structures associated with proposed Units 1 and 2 can 

32 be seen from offsite locations. 

33 This section discusses the historic and cultural background in the region surrounding the LNP 

34 site. It also details the efforts that have been taken to identify cultural resources in the physical 

35 and visual APEs and the resources that were identified. A description of the consultation efforts 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-166 August 2010 

1 is also provided. The assessments of effects from building and operating the proposed new 

2 units are found in Sections 4.6 and 5.6, respectively. 

3 2.7.1 Cultural Background 

4 This section provides an overview and summary of the cultural history of the LNP site and 

5 region. The discussion of precontact history is derived from cultural resources investigations 

6 completed for the LNP site (Smith et al. 2008; Orton 2008). The region around the LNP site has 

7 a rich cultural history and a record of significant prehistoric and historic resources with evidence 

8 of continuous settlement in the area for 10,000 years, particularly along the Florida Gulf Coast. 

9 Prehistoric occupation of the area is divided into three periods as summarized below: 

10 • Paleoindian (13,000–10,000 Before Present [BP]) − This period of human occupation in the 

11 peninsular coast began at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch. This period is typically 

12 characterized by the presence of small mobile bands of people seasonally dependent upon 

13 large and small game, fish, shellfish, and plants. Archaeological sites from this period are 

14 easily identified by the presence of stone tools or projectile points (i.e., Clovis, Suwannee, 

15 Simpson, Tallahassee, Beaver Lake, and Santa Fe), as well as expedient tools and tools 

16 formed from the bones of Pleistocene fauna. 

17 • Archaic (9500–2500 BP) – The Archaic period is divided into Early (9500−7000 BP), Middle 

18 (7000−5000 BP), and Late, (5000−2500 BP) phases divided into Orange (4000 BP) and 

19 Transitional (3200-2500 BP) subphases. These phases are defined on the basis of 

20 increasingly sedentary settlement patterns and changing diagnostic projectile point 

21 typologies. During the Early phase, there is evidence of at least seasonal camp sites, often 

22 expressed by the presence of large middens (i.e, refuse piles of archaeological material). 

23 The Middle phase is marked by a noticeable change in lithic technology. The change in 

24 lithic technology is more noticeable from Early to Middle Archaic than it is from Paleoindian 

25 to Early Archaic likely representing change in the resources used. The Late phase is 

26 marked by the first occurrence of pottery at the onset of the Archaic Orange subphase 

27 (4000 BP). The presence of this pottery represents a sedentary lifestyle with a need for 

28 food and material storage. This pottery was molded and fiber-tempered with vegetable 

29 fibers. The Archaic Transitional subphase is marked by the appearance of regional 

30 ceramics and evidence of increasingly larger village sites and associated middens. 

31 • Post-Archaic/Regional Cultures (2500−200 BP) − During this period, people appear to have 

32 become more sedentary and particularly adept at exploiting resources found within their 

33 environment, resulting in an overall increase in population growth. There is increased 

34 pottery production, showing regional or cultural affiliation. Post-Archaic cultures are 

35 distinguished by the use of burial mounds and cultivated plants to supplement wild foods. 

36 There is evidence of a decrease in stone tools and an increase in utilitarian tools, such as 

37 containers and ornaments fashioned from bone or shell. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-167 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The history of the Gulf Coast of Florida from its discovery in 1528 to the end of the third 

2 Seminole War in 1858 is summarized from the following references: 

3 • Crystal River Energy Complex Environmental Review application for license renewal (PEF 

4 2008c). 

5 • Levy Units 1 and 2 Environmental Report (PEF 2009a) 

6 • Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for the Levy County Nuclear Power Plant 

7 (LNP) 2008 (Smith et al. 2008) 

8 • Cultural Resource Investigation for the LNP Site and Associated Facilities (Levy and Citrus 

9 Counties, Florida) 2008 (Orton 2008) 

10 Between 1528 and 1559, three Spanish explorers – Panfilo de Narvaez, Hernando de Soto and 

11 Tristán de Luna y Arellano – arrived in the Gulf Coast of Florida region to search for gold and 

12 colonize the area. Although their attempts were unsuccessful, the explorers did encounter 

13 Timucuan-speaking tribes that lived in the region. Over the next two centuries, the Spanish, 

14 French, and the English attempted to build settlements on the peninsula. The Spanish 

15 controlled Florida until 1821 when it was ceded to the United States. 

16 Changes in Native American occupation resulted in the Timucuan-speaking tribes being 

17 absorbed by the Seminoles. Conflict between settlers and the Seminoles was defined by 

18 warfare and slave raids until the mid-19th century. Both this conflict and disease contributed to 

19 the near-extinction of the Seminoles by the mid-19th century. By 1858 at the end of the third 

20 Seminole War, only 200 Seminoles remained. 

21 Although historical documentation suggests there may have been fighting on the LNP site, there 

22 is no archaeological or other physical evidence to support this suggestion (Smith et al. 2008). 

23 Nine forts were reportedly established in Levy County as part of the conflict with Native 

24 Americans in the region with the Second and Third Seminole Wars (Smith et al. 2008). 

25 Economic development in the surrounding areas contributed to an increase in agriculture and 

26 hence population, with a tripling of people, one fourth of them slaves, over a period of 10 years 

27 (1850−1860). This increase was also due to the county’s foremost port and manufacturing 

28 center, Cedar Key, and to the cross-state railroad that was promoted by David Levy Yulee for 

29 whom Levy County is named. Cedar Key was occupied by both northern and southern troops 

30 during the Civil War, but no battles were recorded in the project area. Following the war, Cedar 

31 Key was repaired and the lumber industry that drove it rebounded and grew. This growth during 

32 the late 1800s spread into Levy County in the form of logging (late 1800s) and turpentine 

33 production (early 1900s) that changed the economic focus from agriculture to forest plantation. 

34 The town nearest the project area was first recorded as Black Dirt in 1860. Over the next 

35 30 years it changed its name from Black Dirt to Blind Horse, and from Blind Horse to Inglis, and 

36 became an important river port for the Withlacoochee River during the early 1900s. As part of 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-168 August 2010 

1 this economic development, a short spur of railroad was built running from Dunnellon to Inglis. 

2 The declined use of the railroad may have occurred as early as 1932, as roads were made 

3 more travel-worthy for automobiles and as economic competition decreased business for Inglis. 

4 Around 1910, Levy County started to see its first decrease in population. This decrease from 

5 just over 10,000 people could have been partly due to depleted timber and sap resources and 

6 competition in forest plantation fostered by the invention and use of the Herty cup in Georgia for 

7 harvesting sap. The Herty cup quickly made its way to Florida, and fragments and pieces of 

8 them can still be seen in the project area. The mid- to late-1900s saw slow deforestation of the 

9 project area as aerial photos show decreasing forest coverage. 

10 2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Site and Offsite Areas 

11 To identify the historic and cultural resources at the LNP site, the staff reviewed the following 

12 information: 

13 • Levy County Nuclear Plant COL ER, Rev 1 (PEF 2009a) 

14 • New South Technical Report – Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for the Levy 

15 County Nuclear Power Plant (LNP) 2008 (Smith et al. 2008) 

16 • CH2M Hill Technical Report – Cultural Resource Investigation for the LNP Site and 

17 Associated Facilities, Levy and Citrus Counties, Florida, 2008 (Orton 2008) 

18 • NRC Site Visit and Audit – NRC staff consulted with the Florida State Historic Preservation 

19 Office (SHPO) and also conducted an on-the-ground visit to the Levy site (NRC 2009a) 

20 The reports by Smith et al. (2008) and Orton (2008) are available at the Florida SHPO for 

21 qualified investigators. 

22 The following sections describe archaeological resources, above-ground resources, and 

23 traditional cultural properties (TCPs) that are located within the indirect and direct effects APE 

24 for the LNP site. The APEs and research methodology have been generally defined by PEF in 

25 consultation with the Florida SHPO (Florida SHPO 2007a, b; 2008b). 

26 The direct effects APE, which includes physical impacts on known resources resulting from the 

27 construction and operation of the LNP, was defined in the ER (PEF 2009a) and Smith et al. 

28 report (2008) as follows: 

29 • the 300-ac area slated for the construction of LNP Units 1 and 2, which is within the LNP 

30 site boundary 

31 • an approximately 3300-ac area, which includes the 3105-ac LNP site boundary 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-169 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 • the 2500-ac area for the corridor that contains a transmission line corridor, and heavy-haul 

2 road, and portions of the blowdown line (referred to as Lybass corridor by Smith et al. 

3 (2008)) 

4 • the remaining portions of the blowdown pipeline not included in the 2500-ac area mentioned 

5 above. 

6 The indirect effects APE, which takes into account viewshed impacts on above-ground 

7 resources and TCPs, has been defined by PEF in consultation with the SHPO as a 0.5-mi APE 

8 and a 1-mi radius APE around the cooling towers (PEF 2009a, c). 

9 2.7.2.1 Archaeological Resources 

10 Over the last 40 years, numerous archaeological investigations have been completed in the 

11 area around the proposed project direct effects APE, as described by Smith et al. (2008). 

12 Between 1966 and 2006, nine archaeological investigations were conducted adjacent to the 

13 LNP site, including three within or directly adjacent to the APE. This previous work around the 

14 APE has resulted in numerous archaeological sites being recorded. Files maintained by the 

15 Florida Division of Cultural Resources, a department of the Florida SHPO, document seven 

16 isolated finds or archaeological occurrences (AOs; involving two or fewer artifacts) and three 

17 archaeological sites within a 1-mi radius, but outside of the proposed 3300-ac plot and 2500-ac 

18 tract APEs. None of these discoveries has been determined to be eligible for listing in the 

19 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or National Register) (PEF 2009a; Smith et al. 

20 2008). 

21 Forty-seven sites have been recorded within 1 mi of the southern blowdown APE terminus near 

22 the coastal portion of the project outside the APE. Five of the 47 have been recommended as 

23 being eligible for listing in the National Register by the investigators that identified them, without 

24 evaluation or concurrence from SHPO. None of the sites occur in the APE. 

25 A Phase I archaeological investigation of the above-listed four APE areas was conducted for the 

26 Levy COLs (Smith et al. 2008). Prior to the investigation, only two archaeological isolated finds 

27 had been previously recorded within the current APE (8LV499 and 8LV485) and both had been 

28 determined to not be eligible for listing in the National Register (Smith et al. 2008; PEF 2009a). 

29 Investigators were unable to locate these isolates during the 2007 investigation. 

30 The Phase I investigation resulted in the identification of four isolated finds and one 

31 archaeological site, a lithic scatter site (8LV744) within the 3300-ac LNP tract. The investigation 

32 for the 2500-ac tract yielded two isolated finds: one historic site (8LV746), a portion of the 

33 historic rail line spur from Dunnellon to Inglis ca 1905−1932, and one prehistoric site (8LV475), 

34 a lithic scatter. The six isolates (AOs 1−6) and the three sites (8LV744, 8LV745, and 8LV746) 

35 were not considered to be eligible for listing in the National Register. The isolates were 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-170 August 2010 

1 considered not eligible because they “do not meet the criteria established by the Florida Division 

2 of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research for recording as a site” (Smith et al. 

3 2008). The two prehistoric sites, 8LV744 and 8LV745, were determined to not be eligible due to 

4 the sparse and nondiagnostic nature of the artifact scatters. The historic railroad grade was 

5 determined not eligible because “[t]he remains of the rail spur do not exhibit characteristics that 

6 would make this linear remnant eligible for listing in the NRHP” (Smith et al. 2008). Florida 

7 SHPO concurred with PEF’s findings that there are no historic properties present and no further 

8 work is recommended (Smith et al. 2008; Florida SHPO 2008b). 

9 The CFBC was recommended by PEF as not being eligible for listing in the National Register 

10 (Orton 2008). This assessment was made based on the canal being less than 50 years old, and 

11 having “not achieved [the] exceptional importance” needed to be an exception to the 50-year 

12 minimum age necessary for eligibility for the National Register (Orton 2008). This assessment 

13 received Florida SHPO concurrence (Florida SHPO 2008a). 

14 2.7.2.2 Above-Ground Resources 

15 Background research for above-ground resources was completed by qualified staff (Orton 

16 2008). This research included visits to local libraries and repositories, a search of the National 

17 Park Service Historic Property database online, phone conversations with SHPO, and a search 

18 of the Florida Master Site File database (Orton 2008; PEF 2009a). PEF also researched parcel 

19 data, historic plat maps, titles, and real-estate records. An above-ground resources survey of 

20 the direct effects and indirect effects APE revealed no structures built in 1957 or earlier, which 

21 would make them 50 years or older. This 50-year minimum age is necessary for eligibility of 

22 standing structures in the National Register. 

23 2.7.2.3 Traditional Cultural Properties 

24 No TCPs were identified in either the direct- or indirect-effects APE by the Phase I work (Orton 

25 2008; Smith et al. 2008). The Florida SHPO concurred with PEF’s conclusion (Orton 2008; 

26 Smith et al. 2008; Florida SHPO 2008a). By letters dated February 14, 2008, the Miccosukee 

27 Tribe, the Muscogee Nation of Florida, the Perdido Bay Tribe of Lower Muscogee Creek, and 

28 the Seminole Tribe of Florida were contacted by PEF requesting information and input regarding 

29 the LNP Units 1 and 2 COL application (PEF 2009c). The Miccosukee Tribe and Seminole 

30 Tribe of Florida were contacted by the NRC regarding the proposed project to invite them to 

31 participate in the identification of historic and cultural properties (NRC 2008a, b). The 

32 Miccosukee Tribe responded to both the NRC (2008a) and PEF (PEF 2009c) stating they had 

33 no knowledge of cultural resources within the project area. In addition, the Perdido Bay Tribe of 

34 Lower Muscogee Creek was contacted by letter dated August 31, 2009 (NRC 2009c), and the 

35 Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma and the Muscogee Nation of Florida were contacted by NRC by 

36 letters dated May 27, 2010 (NRC 2010a, b). As of June 2010, no TCPs have been identified by 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-171 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 the tribes contacted. Because no TCPs have been located or identified, none are likely to be 

2 affected. 

3 2.7.2.4 Transmission Lines 

4 A description of the transmission-line corridors is included in Section 2.2.2. A work plan for a 

5 Phase I investigation, a schedule for this Phase I work, and desktop cultural resources 

6 investigation have been completed for the proposed transmission lines (PEF 2009d). Results of 

7 the desktop survey for the transmission-line corridor from the proposed LNP to the proposed 

8 Citrus substation (LPC), the transmission-line corridor from the proposed LNP to the CREC 500-

9 kV switchyard (LCR), and the transmission-line corridor from the proposed LNP to Central 

10 Florida South substation (LCFS) show that there are 29 cultural resource assessment surveys 

11 for these three proposed corridor alternatives (LPC, LCR, and LCFS (PEF 2009a). 

12 The LCFS corridor contains one NRHP-eligible site (8SM128), and two sites having confirmed 

13 or potential human remains (8SM10 and 8SM84). Site 8SM128 is a site with both historic and 

14 prehistoric components. Site 8SM10 is an NRHP-unevaluated burial mound site. Site 8SM84 is 

15 a cemetery with documented use into the 1980s. According to PEF (2009a), “These sites will 

16 be avoided to the maximum extent practicable during [right-of-way] selection and structure 

17 placement as described in ER Section 9.4.3. If avoidance of these three resources is not 

18 feasible, then appropriate minimization or mitigation measures will be developed in coordination 

19 with the SHPO.” PEF has agreed to complete comprehensive Phase I surveys prior to 

20 construction activities, once transmission-line rights-of-way within the corridors are finalized 

21 (PEF 2009a). 

22 2.7.3 Consultation 

23 In November 2008, NRC initiated consultation on the proposed action by writing to the Florida 

24 SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The NRC received a reply 

25 from the Florida SHPO on December 11, 2008 (Florida SHPO 2008c), which indicated that the 

26 office received the cultural resource assessment from PEF and that no historic or cultural 

27 resources had been identified to date. The NRC received correspondence from the ACHP on 

28 February 17, 2009, which summarized NRC’s requirements under Section 106 of the NHPA and 

29 36 CFR Part 800 (ACHP 2009). 

30 By letters dated November 5, 2008 (NRC 2008a, b), the NRC initiated consultations with two 

31 Federally recognized tribes, The Miccosukee Tribe and the Seminole Tribe of Florida, regarding 

32 the proposed COL application. By letter dated August 31, 2009 (NRC 2009c), the NRC initiated 

33 consultation with one non-Federally recognized tribe, the Perdido Bay Tribe of Lower Muscogee 

34 Creeks, regarding the proposed COL application. By letter dated May 27, 2010 (NRC 2010a), 

35 the NRC initiated correspondence with a non-Federally recognized tribe, the Muscogee Nation 

36 of Florida, regarding the proposed COL application. By letter dated May, 27, 2010 (NRC 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-172 August 2010 

1 2010b), the NRC initiated consultation with the Federally recognized Seminole Tribe of 

2 Oklahoma regarding the proposed COL application. In the letters, NRC provided information 

3 about the proposed action, indicated that review under the NHPA would be integrated with the 

4 NEPA process in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8, invited the opportunity to identify concerns, 

5 provide advice on the evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional, religious, 

6 and cultural importance, and participate in any necessary resolution of adverse effects to such 

7 properties. The Miccosukee Tribe responded on December 10, 2008, stating it had no direct 

8 knowledge of cultural resources within the project area, but recommended that cultural resource 

9 surveys be conducted (Miccosukee Tribe 2008). The NRC responded by letter dated August 

10 25, 2009 (NRC 2009d) providing information regarding cultural resources surveys conducted by 

11 PEF. The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, in response to the NRC’s correspondence, asked that 

12 the NRC work through the Seminole Nation of Florida for development of the EIS and to keep 

13 their tribe informed. As of June 2010, no other Tribes have responded to NRC. 

14 On December 4, 2008, NRC conducted a public scoping meeting in Crystal River, Florida, at 

15 which no comments or concerns regarding historic and cultural resources were made. 

16 2.8 Geology 

17 A summary of the geology of the LNP site is provided in Section 2.6 of the ER (PEF 2009a). 

18 The geology and associated seismological and geotechnical conditions at the LNP site are 

19 described in greater detail in Section 2.5 of the FSAR, which is another part of the COL 

20 application (PEF 2009k). Both the ER and the FSAR incorporated information obtained from 

21 onsite subsurface investigations performed in support of the COL application. The NRC staff’s 

22 description of the geological features and the technical analyses related to safety issues will be 

23 presented in the SER. 

24 The LNP site, which is located in southern Levy County, Florida, lies within the “mid-peninsular 

25 physiographic zone of the Coastal Plain province of the Atlantic Plain division of North America. 

26 The mid-peninsular zone is characterized by discontinuous subparallel ridges lying parallel to 

27 the length of the peninsula” (Florida Geological Survey 1992). As shown in Figure 2-30, the 

28 LNP site lies within the Gulf Coastal Lowlands subdivision of the mid-peninsular zone. 

29 The principal aquifer in the area near the proposed LNP is the Upper Floridan aquifer. The 

30 Upper Floridan is one of the aquifers within the Floridan aquifer system, which is a thick 

31 sequence of carbonate rock, primarily limestones and dolomites of Tertiary Age. Figure 2-31

32 shows the generalized hydrostratigraphy for the Floridan aquifer system in west-central Florida. 

33 Aquifers within the Floridan aquifer system are defined based on their permeability, with 

34 productive zones being classified as aquifers and low-permeability intervals being classified as 
August 2010 2-173 Draft NUREG-1941 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-30. Physiographic Provinces in the Vicinity of the LNP Site (PEF 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-174 August 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-31. Relationship of Stratigraphy and Hydrogeologic Units in West-Central Florida 

3 (PEF 2009a)

4 confining or semi-confining units. These confining units can be composed of clays, fine-grained 

5 limestones, or limestone/dolomite with pore space infilled with anhydrite or quartz. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-175 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Near the LNP site, the Floridan aquifer is overlain by unconsolidated materials that are a less 

2 important source of water. As described by the applicant (PEF 2009a): 

3 Surface soils present at the LNP site are undifferentiated Quaternary sands of the 

4 Smyrna-Immokalee-Basinger (S1547) Series, described as a loamy fine silica sand and 

5 fine silty sand, and are poorly to very poorly drained. The local stratigraphic6 hydrostratigraphic sequences at the LNP site consist of Quaternary surficial aquifer 

7 deposits lying directly over the Floridan Aquifer limestones and dolostones of the Avon 

8 Park Formation. The Upper Floridan Aquifer at the LNP site contains fresh potable 

9 water and is separated physically and hydraulically from the underlying Lower Floridan 

10 Aquifer by sequences of lower permeability evaporite rock units known as the MCU 

11 [middle confining unit], which act as an aquitard. 

12 PEF indicates that, based on a regional study of Florida, there are no faults or other geologic 

13 structures of concern in the vicinity of the LNP site, which is consistent with information 

14 presented in the USGS Ground Water Atlas (USGS 2000). PEF also indicates that the LNP site 

15 is in a region where the limestone is bare or thinly covered, and sinkholes are few, generally 

16 shallow, broad, and develop gradually. This interpretation is also consistent with the USGS 

17 Ground Water Atlas, which shows transmissivity values in the vicinity of the LNP site that are 

18 below the threshold that would be indicative of well-developed karst systems. 

19 Based on a 1988 assessment by the Florida Geological Survey (Lane et al. 1988), mineral 

20 resources within the footprint of the LNP site include sand that could be mined as an aggregate 

21 material used in the construction industry. Additional mineral resources in the vicinity of the 

22 LNP site include dolomite and limestone, which are also mined for use as construction 

23 materials. 

24 2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality 

25 The following three sections describe the climate and air quality of the LNP site. Section 2.9.1 

26 describes the climate of the region and area in the immediate vicinity of the LNP Site; 

27 Section 2.9.2 describes the air quality of the region; and Section 2.9.3 describes atmospheric 

28 dispersion at the site. Section 2.9.4 describes the meteorological monitoring program at the 

29 site. 

30 2.9.1 Climate 

31 The LNP site has a warm humid climate with short mild winters and long warm and humid 

32 summers. While the site is south of the climatological mid-latitude storm tracks (NOAA 2008), 

33 occasional outbreaks of cold northern air do produce freezing conditions (LCD 2007). The 

34 closest first-order weather stations to the site with long periods of record are Gainesville, 

35 Florida, which is located about 44.2 mi northeast of the site, and Tampa, Florida, which is 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-176 August 2010 

1 located about 78 mi south of the site. Although it is further from the LNP site, the Tampa station 

2 provides a better indication of the general climate because of the close proximity of both this 

3 station and the site to the Gulf of Mexico. The site is relatively flat with no topographic features 

4 that would alter the regional climate. 

5 The following climatological statistics are derived from local climatological data for Tampa (LCD 

6 2007). Temperatures are more variable in the winter than in the summer because of the 

7 differences in air mass source regions. Daytime maximum temperatures range from about 90°F 

8 in August to about 70°F in January, while nighttime minimum temperatures range from about 

9 75°F in July and August to about 52°F in January. Monthly average wind speeds range from 

10 about 6 mph in the summer to about 7 mph in the winter and early spring. Precipitation is 

11 greatest from June through September. Most of the precipitation is associated with 

12 thunderstorms that frequently occur in the late afternoon. Snow is rare and generally occurs in 

13 small amounts. 

14 The environment around the LNP site is quite humid, and the average relative humidity is 

15 always greater than 70 percent, with the lowest values occurring in the spring. The relative 

16 humidity also has a large diurnal variation ranging from mid-day values near 65 percent to 

17 nighttime values near 88 percent during the summer. Conditions are dryer in the spring when 

18 the average mid-day value is near 55 percent, and average nighttime value is near 83 percent. 

19 During the winter, nighttime fogs are frequent, and heavy fog (instances in which the visibility is 

20 less than 0.25 mi) is observed, on average, 15 days a year. 

21 On a larger scale, climate change is a subject of national and international interest. The recent 

22 compilation of the state of knowledge in this area (GCRP 2009) has been considered in 

23 preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region during the life of the 

24 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 site include an increase in average temperature of 2 to 4°F; a 

25 decrease in precipitation in the winter, spring, and summer; and an increase in the fall, and an 

26 increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation (GCRP 2009). Changes in climate during the 

27 life of proposed Units 1 and 2 could result in either an increase or decrease in the amount of 

28 runoff; the divergence in model projections for the southeastern United States precludes a 

29 definitive estimate (GCRP 2009). 

30 2.9.1.1 Wind 

31 The prevailing wind direction measured at Tampa is from the south from May through July, and 

32 from the northeast during the rest of the year. The wind speed measured at Tampa is nearly 

33 constant throughout the year, with slightly smaller wind speeds measured during the summer 

34 (LCD 2007). Wind speed and wind direction were measured at the LNP site during the period 

35 from February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2009. The prevailing wind directions measured at 

36 the site during this period were from the east-northeast and from the west. These wind 

37 directions are typical of locations near large bodies of water, such as Tampa, often experience a 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-177 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 sea-breeze circulation. This occurs because of differential heating of the water and land, which 

2 leads to onshore flow during the day, and offshore flow at night (Stull 1988). In these instances, 

3 the average, or prevailing wind direction may mask this variation. An analysis of data collected 

4 at the Tampa station in 2007 highlights these effects. Average wind direction is from the 

5 northeast (offshore) when considering wind measurements made between midnight and 2:00 

6 a.m. In contrast, average wind direction is from the west (onshore) when measurements are 

7 obtained between noon and 2:00 p.m. 

8 2.9.1.2 Atmospheric Stability 

9 Atmospheric stability is a meteorological parameter that describes the dispersion characteristics 

10 of the atmosphere. It can be determined by the difference in temperature between two heights. 

11 A seven-category atmospheric stability classification scheme based on temperature differences 

12 is set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1 (NRC 2007b). When the temperature 

13 decreases rapidly with height, the atmosphere is unstable and atmospheric dispersion is 

14 greater. Conversely, when temperature increases with height, the atmosphere is stable and 

15 dispersion is more limited. 

16 At the LNP site the stability can be computed from the temperature difference measured 

17 between 10 and 60 m above the ground at the meteorological tower. Based on these data, 

18 neutral or slightly stable conditions (classes D and E, respectively) are found to occur in nearly 

19 50 percent of the total hours. More than 25 percent of the hours are classified as stable and 

20 extremely stable conditions (classes F and G, respectively). Extremely, moderately, and weakly 

21 unstable conditions (classes A, B, and C, respectively) were found to occur in approximately 

22 25 percent of the hours (PEF 2009a). 

23 2.9.1.3 Temperature 

24 The temperature measured at the 33-ft level of the meteorological tower at the LNP site is 

25 considered to be representative of the site. Temperature data from the tower from February 1, 

26 2007 through January 31, 2009 show the daily average temperature ranges from a low of 35°F 

27 in January 2008 to a high of 84°F in August 2007. During this 2-year period, the absolute 

28 minimum temperature was 21°F and the absolute maximum temperature was 94°F. These 

29 temperatures are consistent with long-term values measured at Tampa; the normal daily 

30 temperature ranges from 83°F in August to 61°F in January. In addition, on average the daily 

31 minimum temperature measured in January is less than 32°F on 1 or 2 days per year (LCD 

32 2007).

33 2.9.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture 

34 The moisture content of the atmosphere can be represented in a variety of ways. At the LNP 

35 site, the humidity is measured using dew-point temperature. During the period of record, from 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-178 August 2010 

1 February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2009, the highest monthly mean dew-point temperature 

2 was 73°F measured in August 2007 and the lowest monthly mean dew-point temperature was 

3 45.4°F measured in January 2009 (PEF 2008a, 2009a). 

4 The normal amount of annual precipitation received at Tampa is 44.77 in. The majority 

5 (58 percent) of the annual rainfall is associated with thunderstorms that frequently occur from 

6 June through September. On average during this period, between 11 and 20 days per month 

7 have thunderstorms. While there is generally sufficient rainfall, Florida is susceptible to 

8 droughts. Recent periods of droughts include the early 1970s, the early 1980s, 1989–1990, and 

9 1999–2001 (FDEP 2007). 

10 2.9.1.5 Severe Weather 

11 The LNP site can experience severe weather in the form of thunderstorms, hurricanes, and 

12 tornadoes. Tampa experiences thunderstorms approximately 81 days a year. There is a large 

13 annual cycle to the thunderstorms, which are more common in the summer and early fall than 

14 during other times of the year. The thunderstorm observations at Tampa include cases in which 

15 thunder is heard by the observer in the 15 minutes preceding the observations (Glickman 2000). 

16 A county-by-county database of severe weather is maintained by the NOAA. A total of 

17 23 severe thunderstorms (defined to have a wind speed greater than 50 knots) were observed 

18 in Levy County during the period from 1988 to 2008. The tornado database indicates that 

19 22 tornadoes, ranging in strength from F0 to F2 were reported in Levy County. Based on the 

20 analysis presented in NUREG/CR-4461, Rev. 2 (NRC 2007d), the probability of a tornado 

striking the LNP site is 1.16 × 104 year1 21 . Due to its location near the Gulf of Mexico, Levy 

22 County is susceptible to hurricanes and tropical storms. During the period 1977 through 2007, 

23 one hurricane and seven tropical storms passed within approximately 50 mi of the LNP site 

24 (NOAA 2009c). The lone hurricane was Hurricane Gordon, which was a category 1 hurricane 

25 when it passed near the site. While most instances of severe weather near the LNP site are 

26 associated with thunderstorms, tornadoes, and hurricanes, there have been cases of severe 

27 cold weather. During these events the temperature can drop to 10 to 20°F.

28 2.9.2 Air Quality 

29 The LNP site is in Levy County, Florida, which is in the northern part of the West Central Florida 

30 Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) (40 CFR 81.96). Adjacent AQCRs include the 

31 Jacksonville-Brunswick Interstate AQCR, Central Florida Intrastate AQCR, and Southwest 

32 Florida Intrastate AQCR. All of the counties in these AQCRs near the LNP site are in 

33 compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as shown in 

34 40 CFR 81.310. 

35 The FDEP operates a network to measure the concentration of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen 

36 dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide throughout the state. The monitoring sites 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-179 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 are concentrated in areas with large population densities. The monitoring sites closest to the 

2 LNP site are located to the east of the site in Alachua and Marion Counties. The Air Quality 

3 Index (AQI) is a standard method for reporting air-pollution levels for the general public. The 

4 AQI is based on comparison of the concentrations of six pollutants with the NAAQSs. The six 

5 pollutants are ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter 

6 smaller than 10 microns, and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. The air-pollution level 

7 for each day is placed in one of six categories based on the AQI. In order of decreasing air 

8 quality, the categories are Good, Moderate, Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups, Unhealthy, Very 

9 Unhealthy, and Hazardous. The AQI is not computed for Levy County, but is for several 

10 adjacent counties, including Alachua, Marion, and Citrus Counties. In 2007, the last complete 

11 year for which data are available, only 1 day in the three counties was classified as bad as 

12 Unhealthy, and only 9 days in the three counties were classified as Unhealthy for Sensitive 

13 Groups. In nearly all of the cases ozone was the main contributor to the AQI. 

14 There is only one mandatory Class 1 Federal Area (where visibility is protected) within 100 mi of 

15 the LNP site. The Chassahowitzka Class I area is located approximately 25 mi south of the site. 

16 Two other Class 1 Areas – the St. Marks Class I area and the Okefenokee Class 1 area – are 

17 located approximately 110 mi northwest and 110 mi north-northeast of the site, respectively. 

18 2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion 

19 The NRC staff visited the meteorological measurement system at the site and reviewed the 

20 available information on the design of the meteorological measurements program and evaluated 

21 data collected by the program. Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the 

22 program provides data that represent the affected environment onsite meteorological conditions 

23 as required by 10 CFR 100.20. The data also provide an acceptable basis for making estimates 

24 of atmospheric dispersion for the evaluation of the consequences of routine and accidental 

25 releases required by 10 CFR 50.34, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and 10 CRF 52.79. 

26 2.9.3.1 Short-Term Dispersion Estimates 

27 PEF calculated short-term dispersion estimates using 2 years of onsite meteorological data 

28 (from February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2009). These estimates, which were provided in 

29 Section 2.7.6.2 of the ER (PEF 2009a), were based on distances to the exclusion area 

30 boundary (EAB) and outer boundary of the LPZ as defined in Section 2 of the ER (PEF 2009a). 

31 Based on its review of the revised dispersion estimates, the NRC staff determined that the 

32 revised estimates were overly conservative and did not appropriately reflect realistic dispersion 

33 conditions at the site. Consequently, the NRC staff calculated site-specific short-term 

34 dispersion estimates for the EIS design basis accident (DBA) review. 

35 The NRC staff’s short-term dispersion estimates for use in DBA calculations are listed in Table 

36 2-36. They are based on the PAVAN computer code (Bander 1982) calculations of 1-hour and 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-180 August 2010 

1 annual average atmospheric dispersion (χ/Q) values from a joint frequency distribution of wind 

2 speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability. These values were calculated for the shortest 

3 distances from a release boundary envelope that encloses the LNP Unit 1 or Unit 2 release 

4 points to the EAB and to the LPZ. The 50-percent EAB χ/Q value listed in Table 2-36 is the 

5 median 1-hr χ/Q, which is assumed to persist for 2 hours. The 50-percent LPZ χ/Q values listed 

6 in Table 2-36 were determined by logarithmic interpolation between the median 1-hour χ/Q, 

7 which was assumed to persist for 2 hours, and the annual average χ/Q following the procedure 

8 described in Regulatory Guide 1.145 (NRC 1983). 

9 Table 2-36. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Proposed Unit 3 and 4 Design Basis Accident 

10 Calculations 

Time Period Boundary χ/Q (s/m3

) 

0 to 2 hours Exclusion Area Boundary 3.60×105

0 to 8 hours(a) Low Population Zone 5.97×106

8 to 24 hours(a)

 Low Population Zone 4.69×106

1 to 4 days(a)

 Low Population Zone 3.72×106

4 to 30 days(a)

 Low Population Zone 2.79×106

(a) Times are relative to beginning of the release to the environment. 

11 2.9.3.2 Long-Term Diffusion Estimates 

12 Long-term dispersion estimates for use in evaluation of the radiological impacts of normal 

13 operations were calculated by PEF using the XOQDOQ computer code (Sagendorf et al. 1982) 

14 and 2 years of onsite meteorological data (February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2009) (PEF 

15 2009a). This code implements the guidance set forth in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.111 

16 (NRC 1977) for estimation of χ/Q and deposition factors (D/Q) for use in evaluation of the 

17 consequences of normal reactor operations. The results of the PEF calculations are presented 

18 in Table 2-37 for receptors of interest, including the closest point of the EAB, the LPZ, the 

19 nearest residence, the closest milk cow, the closest milk goat, the closest meat animal, and the 

20 closest vegetable garden. Tables 2.7-58 through 2.7-61 in the ER presents annual average 

21 atmospheric dispersion and deposition factors for 11 distances between 0.25 and 50 mi from 

22 the release point for each of 16 direction sectors. 

23 2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring 

24 A meteorological monitoring program has existed at the LNP site since February 2007. The 

25 initial instrumentation was installed to provide onsite meteorological information for the licensing 

26 of LNP, and it continues to be operated in support of LNP Units 1 and 2. The instrumentation is 

27 described in detail in Section 6.4 of the ER (PEF 2009a). The tower and instrumentation 

28 comply with the requirements listed in Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1 (NRC 2007b). Wind 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-181 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 2-37. Maximum Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for 

2 Evaluation of Normal Effluents for Receptors of Interest 

Receptor 

Downwind 

Sector 

Distance 

(mi) 

No Decay 

/Q (s/m3)

2.26-Day 

Decay 

/Q (s/m3

) 

8-Day 

Decay 

/Q (s/m3

) 

D/Q 

(1/m2) 

EAB WSW 0.83 1.9×105 1.8×105 1.7×105 1.3×108

LPZ WSW 3.00 3.5×106 3.3×106 2.8×106 1.4×109

Nearest Residence WSW 1.70 7.3×106

 7.0×106 6.0×106 3.7×109

Milk Cow(a)

 WSW 5.00 1.9×106 1.6×106 1.3×106 5.5×1010

Milk Goat(a)

 WSW 5.00 1.9×106 1.6×106 1.3×106 5.5×1010

Meat Animal(a)

 WSW 5.00 1.9×106 1.6×106 1.3×106 5.5×1010

Veg. Garden(a)

 WSW 1.70 7.3×106 7.0×106 6.0×106 3.7×109

 (a) If nearest receptor location is further than 5 mi from the LNP, then 5 mi was assumed as the distance to the 

receptor. 

3 speed and wind direction ambient temperature, delta-temperature, and humidity are measured 

4 at two levels: 10 m and 60 m above the ground. Calibration of the datalogger, wind sensors, 

5 and rain gauge is completed semi-annually. Calibration of the sensors used to measure 

6 pressure and dew-point temperature is performed annually. The thermistors used for the 

7 temperature and delta-temperature measurements are quite stable, and routine calibration is 

8 not required. The ambient and differential measurements are, however, compared on a regular 

9 basis to identify errors. 

10 2.10 Nonradiological Environment 

11 This section describes aspects of the environment at the LNP site and within the vicinity of the 

12 site associated with nonradiological human health impacts. The section provides the basis for 

13 evaluation of impacts on human health from the building and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 

14 and 2. Building activities have the potential to affect public and occupational health, create 

15 impacts from noise, and affect the health of the public and workers from transportation of 

16 construction materials and personnel to the LNP site. Operation of the proposed Units 1 and 2 

17 has the potential to affect the public and workers at the LNP site from operation of the 

18 cooling system, noise generated by operations, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated 

19 by transmission systems, and transportation of operations and outage workers to and from the 

20 LNP site. 

21 2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health 

22 This section describes potential impacts on public and occupational health at the LNP site and 

23 vicinity associated with air quality, occupational injuries, and etiological agents (i.e., disease 

24 causing microorganisms). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-182 August 2010 

1 2.10.1.1 Air Quality 

2 Public and occupational health can be affected by changes in air quality from activities that 

3 contribute to fugitive dust, vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions, and automobile exhaust 

from commuter traffic (NRC 1996, 1999(a) 4 ). Air quality for Levy County is discussed in 

5 Section 2.9.2. Fugitive dust may be generated during land clearing and construction activities, 

6 as well as by exhaust from construction equipment (PEF 2009a). Exhaust emissions from 

7 construction equipment are predicted to include particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

8 diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), nitrogen oxides, CO, and volatile organic compounds. 

9 PEF states that the emissions are likely to be similar to those from other large construction 

10 projects, and air quality impacts beyond the site boundary are likely to be minimal owing to the 

11 large extent of the site (3105 ac) and long distances from the locations where the bulk of 

12 construction would occur to the site boundaries (PEF 2009a). The nearest accessible area is 

13 approximately 1 mi from the construction site for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, and the nearest 

14 residences are 1.6 mi to the northwest and 1.7 mi to the west-southwest, respectively (PEF 

15 2009a). 

16 Exhaust emissions during normal plant operations associated with onsite vehicles and 

17 equipment as well as from commuter traffic can affect air quality and human health. 

18 Nonradiological supporting equipment (e.g., diesel generators, fire pump engines), and other 

19 nonradiological emission-generating sources (e.g., storage tanks) or activities are not expected 

20 to be a significant source of criteria pollutant emissions. Diesel generators and supporting 

21 equipment would be in place for emergency use only, but would be started regularly to confirm 

22 that the systems are operational. Emissions from nonradiological air-pollution sources are 

23 permitted by FDEP and Levy County. 

24 2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries 

25 In general, occupational health risks to workers and onsite personnel engaged in activities such 

26 as building, maintenance, testing, excavation, and modifications are expected to be dominated 

27 by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, asphyxiation) or occupational illnesses. 

28 Historically, actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the 

29 average U.S. industrial rates. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides reports that 

30 account for occupational injuries and illnesses as total recordable cases, which include cases 

31 that result in death, loss of consciousness, days away from work, restricted work activity or job 

32 transfer, or medical treatment beyond first aid (BLS 2010a). The State of Florida also tracks the 

33 annual incidence rates of injuries and illnesses for electric power generation, transmission, and 

34 distribution workers (BLS 2010b). These records of statistics are used to estimate the likely 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999. 

Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-183 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 number of occupational injuries and illnesses for operation of Units 1 and 2 and predict the likely 

2 number of cases for the proposed new units. 

3 2.10.1.3 Etiological Agents 

4 Public and occupational health may be affected by activities at the LNP site that encourage the 

5 growth of disease-causing microorganisms (etiological agents). Thermal discharges from 

6 proposed Units 1 and 2 through the CREC into the Gulf of Mexico have the potential to increase 

7 the growth of etiological agents (thermophilic microorganisms) (PEF 2009a). The types of 

8 organisms of concern for public and occupational health include enteric pathogens (such as 

9 Salmonella spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa), thermophilic fungi, bacteria (such as 

10 Legionella spp. and Vibrio spp.), and free-living amoeba (such as Naegleria fowleri and 

11 Acanthamoeba spp.). These microorganisms could result in potentially serious human health 

12 concerns, particularly at high exposure levels (NRC 1996). 

13 

14 Vibrio spp. are a concern for human health because these theromophilic bacteria are commonly 

15 found in coastal marine waters and can be associated with filter-feeding shellfish (e.g., oysters). 

16 People can be exposed to the bacteria through activities such as swimming, diving, or wading in 

17 the water, as well as through consumption of contaminated shellfish. Vibrio cholerae causes 

18 the disease cholera, which is an acute, diarrheal illness. Other Vibrio species do not cause 

19 cholera (e.g., V. vulnificus and V. parahaemolyticus), however, exposure to the bacteria can 

20 cause watery diarrhea and abdominal cramps as well as skin infections. Cholera and non21 cholera illnesses caused by Vibrio spp. can be fatal. CDC reports that the most common cases 

22 of illness are from exposure to recreational waters in the Gulf Coast, and Florida had the highest 

23 number of cases from 2003 – 2006 (CDC 2006, 2008a). Over the past 10 years, Levy County 

24 reported no cases of cholera and 5 cases of non-cholera Vibrio illnesses; and Citrus County 

25 reported no cases of cholera and 10 cases of non-cholera Vibrio illnesses (FDOH 2010a). 

26 Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) associated with exposure to Naeglaeria fowleri

27 and other strains is a potentially serious concern because of its high mortality rate. The 

28 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that a total of 27 cases of PAM 

29 linked to Naegleria sp. occurred in the United States in the years 2000–2007 (CDC 2008b). All 

30 of the cases occurred in southern states (including three fatal cases in Florida in 2007), and 95 

31 percent of the reported cases occurred in the summer months. The most common sources of 

32 exposure were warm-water lakes and rivers. In the three Florida cases that occurred in 2007, 

33 the presumed sources of exposure were a privately owned water sports facility, a “local lake” 

34 (identity not specified), and an apartment swimming pool or “drainage ditches and canals.” 

35 None of the cases described by CDC (CDC 2004, 2006, 2008a, b) attribute exposures to 

36 waterbodies affected by thermal discharges from power plants or other industrial operations, 

37 although the described cases are thought to represent only a small percentage of the national 

38 total. Yoder et al. (2010), in an analysis based on data from CDC and other sources, report that 

39 a total of 28 cases of PAM were reported in the United States in the years 2000–2008, with 6 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-184 August 2010 

1 cases occurring in Florida; 1 in 2000, 2 in 2002, and 3 in 2007. The majority of cases reported 

2 in the United States (73.6 percent) were associated with exposures in “lakes, rivers, and 

3 reservoirs.” No data are provided as to whether thermal discharges played a role in any of the 

4 cases. 

5 A fatal case of PAM was reported in a 22-year-old man who attended a water sports complex in 

6 Seminole County, Florida in September 2009, and another case was reported in a 10-year-old 

7 boy two weeks later. Lake Arietta in Polk County was identified as the most likely exposure 

8 source in the latter case (Bodiger 2010). Lake Arrieta is located in a residential area and not 

9 affected by heat releases from industrial sources. The Levy County Department of Health 

10 reports that no cases of PAM have occurred in the county in the last 10 years (Wilson 2010), 

11 and the Florida DOH regional epidemiologist reports that there have been no reported cases of 

12 PAM in Florida since the two cases discussed above (Bodiger 2010). 

13 Exposure to Legionella sp. bacteria can cause Legionnaires’ disease, a potentially life14 threatening pneumonia, and Pontiac Fever, a flu-like illness. Based on CDC-assembled data, 

15 the CDC (2004, 2006, 2008a) reports a total of 18 Legionella outbreaks affecting 498 people in 

16 16 states in the years 2001–2006. One outbreak affecting 11 people occurred in Florida. Most 

17 of the outbreaks (including the one in Florida) involved exposure to contaminated water in spas 

18 or swimming pools. Richardson, et al. (2010) reported that 12 cases of Legionellosis occurred 

19 in Seminole County, Florida in 2009. Cases were concentrated in the summer months, and two 

20 of the victims were members of the same fitness club, where a swimming pool and shower were 

21 identified as potential exposure sources. No common exposure source could be identified for 

22 the remaining cases. Overall, the annual rate of legionella infection in the county was 

23 approximately double the average over that seen in the previous 5 years. The CDC (2010) 

24 reported that 10 cases of Legionnellosis were identified in Florida through May 15, 2010. No 

25 additional information was provided regarding locations or potential exposure sources. Data 

26 from the Florida department of Health Communicable Disease Frequency Reports (FDOH 

27 2010b) indicates that one case of Legionnellosis occurred in Levy County in 2009 and none 

28 through the first three months of 2010; in Citrus County, there were no Legionnellosis cases in 

29 2009 and one case in 2010. 

30 Exposure to Pseudomonas aeruginosa may cause skin and ear infections in healthy individuals, 

31 and more serious infections in those with compromised immune systems. Fourteen outbreaks 

32 of Pseudomonas-related disease (mostly skin rashes) were reported in eight states, primarily in 

33 the Midwest, in 2001–2006 (CDC 2004, 2006, 2008a). 

34 Exposure to Shigella sp. and Salmonella sp. can cause gastroenteritis, characterized by fever, 

35 abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. The most common source of exposure to these 

36 organisms is through contaminated food, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

37 reports that approximately 300,000 and 50,000 cases of Shigella- and Salmonella-related 

38 gastroenteritis, respectively, occur per year in the United States (FDA 2009a, b). In contrast, 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-185 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 only a handful of outbreaks associated with recreational water exposures (four due to Shigella, 

2 none due to Salmonella) have been identified in recent years (CDC 2004, 2006, 2008a). 

3 The County Epidemiologist for Levy County indicated that there have been no outbreaks of 

4 shigellosis or salmonellosis in Levy County within the past 10 years, although sporadic cases 

5 have been reported (Wilson 2010). According to data from Florida’s Community Health 

6 Assessment Resource Tool Set (CHARTS) (FDOH 2010c), the reported rates of salmonellosis 

7 in Levy County for 2006, 2007, and 2008 were 15.3, 27.4, and 31.8 per year per 100,000 

8 population, respectively, compared to state-wide rates of 26.0, 26.8, and 28.2 per year per 

9 100,000 population. During the same years, the reported rates of shigellosis in Levy County 

10 were 10.2, 12.4, and 2.4 per 100,000, respectively, compared to statewide rates of 7.3, 12,2, 

11 and 4.3 per year per 100,000 population. Based on data from the Florida DOH Communicable 

12 Disease Frequency Reports (FDOH 2010b), there were 22 cases of salmonellosis and no cases 

13 of shigellosis reported in Levy County in 2009. There have been two cases of salmonellosis 

14 and no cases of shigellosis reported in Levy County in the first four months of 2010. 

15 

16 Reported rates of salmonellosis in Citrus county for 2006, 2007, and 2008 were 13.1, 32.7, and 

17 27.4 per year per 100,000 population, respectively, similar to the annual rates for the state as a 

18 whole (FDOH 2010c). During the same years, the reported rates of shigellosis in Citrus County 

19 were 4.4, 144.3, and 0.0 per 100,000 population, respectively. An investigation by the Florida 

20 Department of Health (FDOH 2008) found that the high rate of shigellosis in Citrus County in 

21 2007 (203 total cases) was due to an outbreak centered on daycare centers and elementary 

22 schools. Five cases of shigellosis were reported in Citrus County in 2009, and one case has 

23 been reported through April 30, 2010 (FDOH 2010b) 

24 2.10.2 Noise 

25 Sources of noise at the LNP site would be associated with heavy equipment during the 

26 construction phase and mechanical draft cooling towers and cooling pumps during operation of 

27 Units 1 and 2. Another source of noise during facility operation would be the CWIS makeup28 water pump house that is located adjacent to the CFBC, approximately 3.5 mi south of the 

29 center of the main plant site near CR-40. Transmission lines and substations may produce 

30 noise from corona discharge – the electrical breakdown of air into charged particles. 

31 The LNP site is located on 3105 ac of land surrounded by mixed rural-agricultural land in an 

32 area of low-population density. The closest noise-sensitive receptors were identified as being 

33 the residences located approximately 1.6 mi to the northwest and 1.7 mi to the west-southwest 

34 of the center of the project site. Individuals participating in recreational activities on the Inglis 

35 Island Trail in Goethe State Forest might also be affected by construction noise (PEF 2009a). 

36 The rural surroundings and enclosure of noise-generating equipment in facilities help to mitigate 

37 onsite noise perceived by offsite receptors. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-186 August 2010 

1 Activities associated with building the new units at the LNP site would have peak noise levels in 

2 the range of 100 to 110 on the A-weighted scale (dBA). As illustrated in Table 2-38, noise 

3 strongly attenuates with distance. A decrease of 10 dBA in noise level is generally perceived as 

4 cutting the loudness in half. At a distance of 50 ft from the source, these peak noise levels 

5 would generally decrease to the 80-to-95-dBA range and at distance of 400 ft, the peak noise 

6 levels would generally be in the 60-to-80-dBA range. For context, the sound intensity of a quiet 

7 office is 50 dBA, normal conversation is 60 dBA, busy traffic is 70 dBA, and a noisy office with 

8 machines or an average factory is 80 dBA (Tipler 1982). 

9 Table 2-38. Construction Noise Sources and Attenuation with Distance

10 Federal regulations governing noise associated with the activities at the LNP site are limited to 

11 worker health. Federal regulations governing construction noise are found in 29 CFR 

12 Part 1910, Occupational Health and Safety Standards, and 40 CFR Part 204, Noise Emission 

13 Standards for Construction Equipment. The regulations in 29 CFR Part 1910 deal with noise 

14 exposure in the construction environment, and the regulations in 40 CFR Part 204 generally 

15 govern the noise levels of compressors. The Levy County Noise Ordinance (Levy County Code 

16 50-349) limits sound levels experienced by offsite receptors due to industrial activities. For 

17 residential, rural agricultural, and commercial districts, the maximum allowable noise level at the 

18 property line is 65 dBA for the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. For industrial districts, the maximum 

19 allowable noise level is 75 dBA at all times. Allowable noise limits are lower from 10 p.m. to 

20 7 a.m. in residential areas (55 dBA) and rural districts (60 dBA).The CWIS makeup-water pump 

Source

Noise 

Level 

(peak)

Distance from Source

50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 400 ft

Heavy trucks 95 84–89 78–83 72–77 66–71 

Dump trucks 108 88 82 76 70 

Concrete mixer 105 85 79 73 67 

Jackhammer 108 88 82 76 70 

Scraper 93 80–89 74–82 68–77 60–71 

Dozer 107 87–102 81–96 75–90 69–84 

Generator 96 76 70 64 58 

Crane 104 75–88 69–82 63–76 55–70 

Loader 104 73–86 67–80 61–74 55–68 

Grader 108 88–91 82–85 76–79 70–73 

Dragline 105 85 79 73 67 

Pile driver 105 95 89 83 77 

Forklift 100 95 89 83 77 

Source: Golden et. al 1980 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-187 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 house would be located adjacent to the CFBC, approximately 3.5 mi south of the center of the 

2 main plant site near County Road (CR) 40 close to the border with Citrus County. 

3 2.10.3 Transportation 

4 The highway and rail transportation network surrounding the LNP site is shown in Figure 2-1 

5 and Figure 2-2. The major highway located near the LNP site is US-19/US-98, which runs north 

6 to south near the Gulf of Mexico coastline. I-75, the closest interstate highway, is 26.5 mi east 

7 of the LNP site. Major access roads to the LNP site include US-19, CR-336, and CR-40. US-19 

8 links the communities of Inglis, Lebanon Station, Gulf Hammock, Otter Creek, Chiefland, and 

9 Fanning Springs in Levy County. CR-40 connects Citrus Springs to Inglis at US-19 south of the 

10 LNP site, and CR-336 connects Citrus Springs to Lebanon Station at US-19 north of the LNP 

11 site. 

12 Access to the site is proposed through two driveways on US-19 and a heavy-haul road 

13 intersection crossing CR-40. The northern US-19 driveway is proposed as a "construction only" 

14 driveway, while the southern US-19 driveway is proposed as the main site access upon 

15 completion of construction. The heavy-haul road would be constructed specifically to transport 

16 equipment and materials between the barge slip access road and the LNP site, and extends 

17 north from CR-40 to the LNP site. The barge slip access road would extend from CR-40 south 

18 to the anticipated barge slip. The new slip would be located on the northern bank of the CFBC 

19 at the end of the proposed barge slip access road. 

20 Two railroad lines are located within 10 mi of the LNP site. The lines include an abandoned 

21 track with only the rail bed remaining, which is located northeast of the site and north of SR-336, 

22 and an active railroad line operated by CSX, which is located southeast of the LNP site. The 

23 CSX line runs from the City of Crystal River northeast to the City of Dunnellon. 

24 2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields 

25 Transmission lines generate both electric and magnetic fields, referred to collectively as EMFs. 

26 Public and worker health can be compromised by acute and chronic exposure to EMFs from 

27 power transmission systems, including switching stations (or substations) onsite and 

28 transmission lines connecting the plant to the regional electrical distribution grid. Transmission 

29 lines operate at a frequency of 60 Hz (60 cycles per second), which is considered to be 

30 extremely low frequency. In comparison, television transmitters have frequencies of 55 to 

31 890 MHz and microwaves have frequencies of 1000 MHz and greater (NRC 1996). 

32 Electric shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in 

33 metallic structures is an example of an acute effect from EMFs associated with transmission 

34 lines (NRC 1996). Objects near transmission lines can become electrically charged by close 

35 proximity to the electric field of the line. An induced current can be generated in such cases, 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-188 August 2010 

1 where the current can flow from the line through the object into the ground. Capacitive charges 

2 can occur in objects that are in the electric field of a line, storing the electric charge, but isolated 

3 from the ground. A person standing on the ground can receive an electric shock from coming 

4 into contact with such an object because of the sudden discharge of the capacitive charge 

5 through the person’s body to the ground. Such acute effects are controlled and minimized by 

6 conformance with National Electrical Safety Code criteria and adherence to the standards for 

7 transmission systems regulated by the FDEP (Fla. Admin. Code. 62-814.450(3)). 

8 Long-term or chronic exposure to power transmission lines have been studied for several years. 

9 These health effects were evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) 

10 (NRC 1996) for nuclear power in the United States, and are discussed in the ER (PEF 2009a). 

11 The GEIS (NRC 1996) reviewed human health and EMFs and concluded the following: 

12 The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with nuclear 

13 plants and associated transmission lines are uncertain. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs 

14 have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field 

15 exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic 

16 chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced 

17 and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the science is 

18 currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. 

19 2.11 Radiological Environment 

20 Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would be located on a greenfield site. Consequently the 

21 radiological environment of the LNP site has not been characterized. However, the LNP site is 

22 located 9.6 mi northeast of CREC Unit 3 and both facilities are operated by PEF. A radiological 

23 environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been in place for the CREC Unit 3 site since 

24 operations began in 1977. The REMP includes monitoring of the airborne-exposure pathway, 

25 direct-exposure pathway, water-exposure pathway, aquatic-exposure pathway from the Gulf of 

26 Mexico, and the ingestion-exposure pathway in a 5-mi radius of the station, with indicator 

27 locations near the plant perimeter and control locations at distances greater than 10 mi away. 

28 The State of Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC), performs 

29 sampling of the facility environs for PEF. The State also analyzes environmental samples, 

30 participates in the Inter-laboratory Comparison Program, and performs the annual land-use 

31 census. Radiological releases are summarized in an annual radiological environmental 

32 operating report crafted by BRC and transmitted by PEF to the NRC. Measured values are 

33 within predicted ranges of background radioactivity (PEF 2007, 2008b). The staff review of 

34 these reports found no indication of radiological consequence associated with the operation of 

35 CREC Unit 3. Two years prior to the operation of LNP Unit 1, a preoperational radiological 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-189 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 monitoring would be used to confirm the baseline for local environmental conditions along the 

2 pathways of exposure discussed in Section 5.9.1. 

3 2.12 Related Federal Projects and Consultation 

4 The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might affect the 

5 environment affected by the granting of COLs to PEF at the LNP site. Any such activities could 

6 result in cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for another Federal agency to 

7 become a cooperating agency for preparation of the EIS. These cumulative impacts are 

8 discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. As discussed in Chapter 1, the USACE is a cooperating 

9 agency for preparation of this EIS. 

10 Federal lands within a 50-mi radius of the LNP site include the following: 

11 • Ocala National Forest in Lake, Marion, and Putnam Counties 

12 • Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge in Dixie and Levy Counties 

13 • Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Citrus and Hernando Counties 

14 • Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge in Levy County 

15 • Cummer Sanctuary in Levy County 

16 • Subtropical Agricultural Research Station in Hernando County 

17 • Plant Materials Center in Hernando County 

18 • Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge in Citrus County. 

19 The 23,578-ac Chassahowitzka Wilderness is within the 50-mi region, but there are no wild and 

20 scenic rivers within the region. There are no Federally recognized Native American Tribal 

21 reservations within the region (PEF 2009a). 

22 The NRC is required under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA to consult with and obtain the comments 

23 from any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any 

24 environmental impact involved in the subject matter of the EIS. During the course of preparing 

25 this EIS, the NRC consulted with other Federal agencies, Tribal contacts, and State and local 

26 agencies. A list of key consultation correspondence is provided in Appendix F. 

27 2.13 References 

28 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Prime and Unique 

29 Farmlands.” 

30 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 

31 Production and Utilization Facilities." 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-190 August 2010 

1 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52. "Licenses, 

2 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." 

3 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site 

4 Criteria." 

5 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, "Occupational 

6 Safety and Health Standards." 

7 33 CFR Part 328. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

8 Part 328, "Definition of Waters of the United States." 

9 35 Fla. Stat. 581. 2009. Florida Statute, Title 35, Agriculture, Horticulture, and Animal Industry, 

10 Chapter 581, “Plant Industry.” 

11 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

12 Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

13 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

14 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes." 

15 40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204, 

16 "Noise Emission Standards for Construction Equipment." 

17 41 FR 41914. July 14, 1976. “Determination of Critical Habitat for American Crocodile, 

18 California Condor, Indiana Bat, and Florida Manatee.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of 

19 the Interior. 

20 59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

21 Populations and Low-Income Populations, Executive Order 12898." Federal Register. U.S. 

22 Office of the President. 

23 66 FR 33903. June 26, 2001. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment 

24 of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Whooping Cranes in the Eastern United States.” 

25 Federal Register. U.S. Department of Interior. 

26 68 FR 13370. March 19, 2003. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation 

27 of Critical Habitat for the Gulf Sturgeon.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Interior. 

28 69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice 

29 Matters in NRC Regulations and Licensing Actions." Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear 

30 Regulatory Commission. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-191 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 73 FR 70290. November 20, 2008. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for 

2 the Endangered Distinct Population Segment of Smalltooth Sawfish." Federal Register. U.S. 

3 Department of Commerce. 

4 73 FR 72210. November 26, 2008. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for 

5 Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals." Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

6 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 2009. Letter from Charlene Swin Vaughn, 

7 ACHP, to Gregory Hatchett, NRC, dated February 17, 2009, regarding Notification and Request 

8 for Consultation and Participation in the Scoping Process for Units 1 and 2, Combined License 

9 Application Review for the Levy County Nuclear Plant Mear Inglis, Florida. Accession No. 

10 ML090620074. 

11 Allen, A.W., Y.K. Bernal, and R.J. Moulton. 1996. Pine Plantations and Wildlife in the 

12 Southeastern United States: An Assessment of Impacts and Opportunities. Information and 

13 Technology Report 3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

14 Baker, A.E., A.R. Wood, and J.R. Cichon. 2007. The Levy County Aquifer Vulnerability 

15 Assessment – Part of the Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (FAVA) Phase II Project, 

16 Contract No. RM059. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection by 

17 Advanced GeoSpatial Inc., Tallahassee FL. 

18 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 16 USC 688a-d. 

19 Bander, T.J. 1982. PAVAN: An Atmospheric-Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design-Basis 

20 Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials for Nuclear Power Stations. NUREG/CR-2858, 

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

22 Birdnature.com. 2009. North American Migration Flyways. Accessed March 9, 2009 at 

23 http://www.birdnature.com/flyways.html. 

24 Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar. 1994. Proceedings of the 

25 Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical 

26 Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Silver 

27 Spring, Maryland. 

28 Bouwer H. and R.C. Rice. 1976. “A Slug Test for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity of 

29 Unconfined Aquifers With Completely or Partially Penetrating Well.” Water Resources 

30 Research 12(3):423-428. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-192 August 2010 

1 Bodiger, Dean. 2010. Personal communication between Dean Bodiger, Florida Department of 

2 Health and William Mendez, ICF International on June 7, 2010, regarding waterborne disease 

3 incidences in Orange, Polk, and Highland Counties. Accession No. ML101890568. 

4 Buckingham, C. 1989. Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge Public Use Survey Report. 

5 Technical Report No. 37, prepared for University of Florida by Chassahowitzka National Wildlife 

6 Refuge, Homosassa, Florida. 

7 Buckley, J. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Larval and Juvenile Red Drum. FWS/OBS8 82-10.74, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

9 Carr, A. and D.K. Caldwell. 1955. “The Ecology and Migrations of Sea Turtles, 1 Results of 

10 Field Work in Florida, 1955.” American Museum Novitiates (1793):1-23. 

11 Carr, S.H., F. Tatman, and F.A. Chapman. 1996. “Observations on the Natural History of the 

12 Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi Vladykov 1955) in the Suwannee River, 

13 Southeastern United States.” Ecology of Freshwater Fish 1996(5):169-174. 

14 CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill). 2009a. Assessment of Community Services 

15 Near Proposed Levy Nuclear Plant, Florida. 338884-TMEM-080 Rev. 0, Englewood, Colorado. 

16 Accession No. ML091260533. 

17 CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill). 2009b. Estimated Salinity Changes in the 

18 Cross Florida Barge Canal and Old Withlacoochee River Channels after Levy Nuclear Plant 

19 Intake Operation. TMEM-079, Rev 1, Denver, Colorado. Accession No. ML091740472. 

20 CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill). 2009c. Floodplain Evaluation Bounding 

21 Analysis for the Levy Nuclear Power Plant Units 2 and 2. Tech Memo 338884-TMEM-106. 

22 Report prepared for Progress Energy Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. 

23 ML093441186. 

24 Citrus County. 2008. Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed July 28, 2009 at 

25 http://www.citruscountyfl.org/devservices/commdev/comp_plan/comp_plan.htm. 

26 Citrus County, City of Crystal River, City of Inverness, and Citrus County School Board. 2008. 

27 Interlocal Agreement for Public Education Facility Planning in Citrus County. Accessed July 9, 

28 2009 at http://www.citrus.k12.fl.us/pgm/school_interlocal.pdf. 

29 Citrus County School District. 2008. 08-09 Workplan. Accessed July 9, 2009 at 

30 http://www.citrus.k12.fl.us/pgm/CCSBForm.htm. 

31 Citrus County Tax Collector. 2009. Property Taxes – 2009 Millage Rates. Accessed July 29, 

32 2009 at http://www.tc.citrus.fl.us/millage.htm. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-193 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 City of Wonders. 2009. City of Wonders – City/County Information, Florida's 405 Municipalities 

2 (Incorporated Cities, Towns and Villages). Accessed September 1, 2009 at 

3 www.cityofwonders.com/cities.asp. 

4 Coastal Zone Management Act of 2006 (CZMA). 16 USC 1451 et seq. 

5 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Executive Office of the President, 

6 "Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act." 

7 Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. “Synopsis of the Biological Data on the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta 

8 caretta (Linnaeus 1758).” Biological Report 88(14). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

9 Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 

10 Doherty, J. 2004. PEST: Model-Independent Parameter Estimation. Computer software, 

11 http://www.parameter-estimation.com/html/pest_overview.html. 

12 Dunnellon. 2009. City of Dunnellon Comprehensive Plan. Accessed July 28, 2009 at 

13 http://www.dunnellon.org/m/0/616/files/ORDINANCE%20200803%20PublicFacilitiesElementGO

14 PS12May2008%202.pdf. 

15 Eaton, C., E. McMichael, B. Witherington, A. Foley, R. Hardy, and A. Meyla 2008. In-water Sea 

16 Turtle Monitoring and Research in Florida: Review and Recommendations. NOAA Technical 

17 Memorandum NMFS-OPR-38, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Silver Spring, 

18 Maryland. 

19 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. April 8, 1935. Chapter 48, 49 Stat. 115. 

20 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 16 USC 1531 et seq. 

21 Entrix. 2009. Wildlife Survey Results, Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, Levy County, 

22 Florida. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pensacola Regulatory Office, 

23 Pensacola, Florida. Issued September 2008, revised July 2009. 

24 

25 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (also referred to as Clean Water Act). 33 USC 

26 1251, et seq. 

27 Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 5B-40. 2009. Chapter 5B-40, “Preservation of Native Flora of Florida.” 

28 Florida Administrative Code Annotated. 

29 Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-302. 2009. Chapter 62-302, “Surface Water Quality Standards.” 

30 Florida Administrative Code Annotated. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-194 August 2010 

1 Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-340. 2009. Chapter 62-340, “Delineation of the Landward Extent of 

2 Wetlands and Surface Waters.” Florida Administrative Code Annotated. 

3 Fla. Admin Code (FAC) 62-814. 2008. Chapter 62-814, “Electric and Magnetic Fields.” Florida 

4 Administrative Code Annotated.

5 Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 68A. 2009. Division 68A, “ Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

6 Commission.” Florida Administrative Code Annotated.

7 Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 68A-27. 2009. Chapter 68A-27, “Rules Relating to Endangered and 

8 Threatened Species.” Florida Administrative Code Annotated. 

9 Florida Administrative Weekly. 2008. “Notice of Receipt of Land Use Determination.” Florida 

10 Administrative Weekly 17 October 2008. Volume 34 no.42. 

11 Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). 2006. Projections of Florida 

12 Population by County, 2005-2030. Florida Population Studies, Volume 39, Bulletin 144, 

13 February 2006, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 

14 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). 2009. Goethe State 

15 Forest. Accessed April 24, 2009 at http://www.fl-dof.com/state_forests/goethe.html. 

16 Florida Department of Education (FDOE). 2009a. Florida Education Finance Program. 

17 Accessed September 3, 2009 at http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/. 

18 Florida Department of Education (FDOE). 2009b. Class Size Reduction Amendment, School 

19 Averages Traditional Schools 2008. Accessed June 26, 2009 at 

20 http://www.fldoe.org/arm/pdf/ClassSize-District-Traditional-2008.pdf. 

21 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1987. St. Martins Marsh Aquatic 

22 Preserve Management Plan. Prepared for the Bureau of Aquatic Preserves Division of State 

23 Lands. Tallahassee, Florida. 

24 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1988. Public Meeting Draft, Big Bend 

25 Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve and Big Bend marsh Buffer Management Plan. Prepared for the 

26 Bureau of Aquatic Preserves Division of State Lands. FEDP, Tallahassee, Florida. 

27 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2001. Basin Status Report – 

28 Suwannee (Including Aucilla, Coastal, Suwannee, and Waccasassa Basins in Florida). Division 

29 of Water Resource Management. Available at 

30 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/suwannee/status.htm. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-195 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2005. Inglis Lock Review. Report 

2 No. IA-03-21-2005-128, Office of Greenways and Trails, Tallahassee, Florida. 

3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2006. Withlacoochee River (Group 4) 

4 - Verified List. Accessed June 7, 2009 at 

5 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/docs/303d/group4/adopted/Withlacooc

6 heeVerified_051206.pdf. 

7 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2007. Florida Drought Action Plan. 

8 Tallahassee, Florida. April 17, 2007. Available at 

9 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/drought/news/2007/files/florida_drought_action_plan.pdf. 

10 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009a. Marjorie Harris Carr Cross 

11 Florida Greenway – History. Accessed April 30, 2009 at 

12 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/cfg/history.htm. 

13 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009b. Surface Water Quality 

14 Standards, Chapter 62-302. Effective April 2, 2008. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

15 https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=62-302. 

16 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009c. 303(d) Lists. Accessed April 

17 30, 2009 at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl. 

18 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009d. Suwannee River Basin - 

19 Group 1 Cycle 2 - Verified List Revised and Readopted May 2009, Hydrologic Unit: Suwannee 

20 Basin. Accessed June 7, 2009 at 

21 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/docs/303d/group1/adopted/cycle2/suw

22 annee-verified-c2.pdf. 

23 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009e. Springs Coast Group 5 Basin 

24 / Southwest District - Verified List (Cycle 1 Revised and Readopted May 2009), Hydrologic Unit: 

25 Crystal River to St. Pete. Accessed June 7, 2009 at 

26 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/docs/303d/group5/adopted/springscoa

27 stverifiedlist.pdf. 

28 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009f. Public Water Systems. 

29 Accessed June 7, 2009 at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/swapp/PWSType.asp. 

30 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009g. Public Water Systems for 

31 Levy County. Accessed June 7, 2009 at 

32 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/swapp/SelectPWS.asp?county=38. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-196 August 2010 

1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009h. Public Water Systems for 

2 Marion County. Accessed June 7, 2009 at 

3 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/swapp/SelectPWS.asp?county=42. 

4 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009i. Public Water Systems for 

5 Citrus County. Accessed June 7, 2009 at 

6 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/swapp/SelectPWS.asp?county=9. 

7 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009j. Email from Cindy Mulkey, 

8 FDEP, to Linda Fassbender, PNNL, dated July 20, 2009, regarding PEF LNP FWC Agency 

9 Report. Accession No. ML092290072. 

10 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009k. Wastewater Facility 

11 Information. Accessed September 3, 2009 at, 

12 http://appprod.dep.state.fl.us/www_pa/county_permit_summary.asp?county=LEVY. 

13 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009l. Electric Power Plant 

14 Certification Staff Analysis Report. Accession No. ML090480669. 

15 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010a. Levy Nuclear Power Plant, 

16 Units 1 & 2, Progress Energy Florida, PA08-51B, Conditions of Certification. Tallahassee, 

17 Florida. 

18 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010b. Cycle 2, Group 4 

19 Withlacoochee River Basin Draft Verified List Hydrologic Units: Withlacoochee River. Available 

20 at 

21 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/docs/303d/group4/cycle2/verified/withl

22 a-verified-c2-drft.pdf. 

23 Florida Department of Health (FDOH). 2008. “Summary of Notable Outbreaks and Case 

24 Investigations, 2007.” In Florida Annual Morbidity Statistics Report. Tallahassee, Florida. 

25 Accessed June 14, 2010 at 

26 http://www.doh.state.fl.us/disease_ctrl/epi/Morbidity_Report/2007/Sec4-Outbreaks_Case27 Investigations.pdf. 

28 Florida Department of Health (FDOH). 2010a. Communicable Disease Frequency Reports 

29 5.40. Accessed June 25, 2010 at http://www.floridacharts.com/merlin/freqrpt.aspl. 

30 Florida Department of Health (FDOH). 2010b. Florida Communicable Disease Frequency 

31 Reports. Accessed June 7, 2010 at http://www.floridacharts.com/merlin/freqrpt.asp. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-197 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Florida Department of Health (FDOH). 2010c. “Communicable Diseases - Enteric Diseases” in 

2 Florida Community Health Assessment Resources Tool Set (CHARTS). Accessed May 21, 

3 2010 at http://www.floridacharts.com/charts/Domain2.aspx?Domain='01'. 

4 Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR). 2010a. Discretionary Sales Surtax Information,

5 Accessed May 7, 2010 at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/forms/2010/dr15dss.pdf. 

6 Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR). 2010b. Glorida’s Sales and use Tax  ́ Industry. 

7 Accessed May 6, 2010 at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sales_tax.html. 

8 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms 

Classification System. Handbook, 3rd 9 Edition. Surveying and Mapping, Geographic Mapping 

10 Section, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

11 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/Manuals/fluccmanual.pdf. 

12 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2008 Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts, Levy 

13 County, website accessed September 2, 2009 at 

14 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/trafficdata/AADT/34.pdf. 

15 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2006a. Crevalle jack, Caranx 

16 hippos. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

17 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=Crevalle_jack.pdf&o

18 bjid=5046&dltype=article. 

19 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2006b. Ladyfish, Elops saurus. 

20 Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

21 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=Ladyfish.pdf&objid=5

22 267&dltype=article. 

23 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2006c. Grunts, Haemulidae. 

24 Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

25 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=Grunts.pdf&objid=51

26 65&dltype=article. 

27 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2006d. Shrimp. Accessed April 

28 27, 2009 at 

29 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=Food_shrimp.pdf&ob

30 jid=5352&dltype=article. 

31 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2006e. Eastern Oyster, 

32 Crassostrea Virginica. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-198 August 2010 

1 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=Eastern_oyster.pdf&

2 objid=4825&dltype=article. 

3 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2006f. Cobia, Rachycentron 

4 canadum. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

5 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=Cobia.pdf&objid=502

6 9&dltype=article. 

7 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2006g. Flounders, Paralichthys 

8 spp. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

9 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=Flounders.pdf&objid

10 =5114&dltype=article. 

11 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2006h. Spot, Leiostomus 

12 xanthurus. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

13 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=Spot.pdf&objid=5573

14 &dltype=article. 

15 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2007a. Sea Stats: Groupers, 

16 Chameleons of the Sea. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

17 http://research.myfwc.com/products/product_info.asp?id=1527. 

18 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2007b. Blue Crab, Callinectes 

19 sapidus. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

20 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=bluecrab.pdf&objid=3

21 0223&dltype=article. 

22 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2007c. Red Drum, Sciaenops 

23 ocellatus. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

24 http://research.myfwc.com/images/articles/30257/reddrumdp.pdf. 

25 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2008. Florida’s Endangered 

26 Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern. Tallahassee, Florida. 

27 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009a. Environmental 

28 Resource Analysis for the Levy Nuclear Power Site. Provided via email to D.W. Baber, ICF 

29 International, by T. Hoehn, FFWCC, dated May 26, 2010). Accession No. ML092950871. 

30 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009b. 2008 Annual Landings 

31 Summary. Marine Fisheries Information System, Edited Landings Data Through Batch 1015 

32 (Closed 12/22/2008), By County. Accessed April 30, 2009 at 

33 http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=19224. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-199 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009c. Basic Recreational 

2 Saltwater Fishing Regulations. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

3 http://www.myfwc.com/docs/RulesRegulations/Jan2008FlRecreationalSaltwaterRegsChart.pdf. 

4 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009d. Common Snook, 

5 Centropomus undecimalis. Accessed December 17, 2009 at 

6 http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=3873. 

7 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009e. Green Turtle Nesting in 

8 Florida. Accessed February 10, 2009 at 

9 http://www.floridamarine.org/features/print_article.asp?id=2496. 

10 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009f. Leatherback Nesting in 

11 Florida. Accessed February 10, 2009 at 

12 http://www.floridamarine.org/features/print_article.asp?id=2479. 

13 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009g. Commercial Saltwater 

14 Fishing – Trip Ticket Program – Marine Life Species Code List (alphabetical order). Accessed 

15 May 12, 2009 at http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=23423. 

16 Florida Geological Survey. 1992. Florida’s Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program. Special 

17 Publication No. 32. October 1992. 

18 Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH). 2009a. Sheepshead. Education, Biological 

19 Profiles Information Sheet. Accessed April 10, 2009 at 

20 http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/descript/sheepshead/sheepshead.html. 

21 Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH). 2009b. Sawfish Implementation Team. Accessed 

22 March 24, 2010 at http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/sawfish/srt/srt.htm. 

23 Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2009. Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of 

24 Florida. Accessed various dates at http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/index.cfm. 

25 Florida State Historic Preservation Office (Florida SHPO). 2007a. Letter from Frederick Gaske, 

26 Director and SHPO, to Dr. Greg Smith, New South Associates, Inc., dated September 25, 2007, 

27 regarding DHR Project File No.: 2007-7144 Received by SHPO: August 7, 2007; Levy County 

28 Power Plant Cultural resource assessment survey strategy - 2500-acre tract, Levy County. 

29 Accession No. ML101930587. 

30 Florida State Historic Preservation Office (Florida SHPO). 2007b. Email from Laura Kammerer, 

31 Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, and Greg Smith, New South Associates, dated 

32 September 25, 2007, regarding Levy County Plant. Accession No. ML090760190. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-200 August 2010 

1 Florida State Historic Preservation Office (Florida SHPO). 2008a. Email from Laura Kammerer, 

2 Florida SHPO, to Sara Orton, CH2M Hill, dated July 15, 2008, regarding Levy County site. 

3 Accession No. ML090760295. 

4 Florida State Historic Preservation Office (Florida SHPO). 2008b. Email from Laura Kammerer, 

5 Florida SHPO, to Sara Orton, CH2M Hill, dated February 12, 2008, regarding Progress Energy 

6 Levy County APE for transmission lines. Accession No. ML090760192. 

7 Florida State Historic Preservation Office (Florida SHPO). 2008c. Letter from Frederick Gaske 

8 Florida SHPO, to Gregory Hatchett, NRC, dated December 11, 2008, regarding Proposed Levy 

9 County Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and 2, Levy County. DHR No. 2008-07149. Accession No. 

10 ML090650566. 

11 Florida Tax Watch. 1999. Hosing the Taxpayers of Florida: The Truth About Florida's Gas 

12 Taxes. Tallahasee FL. Accessed May 12, 2009 at 

13 http://www.floridataxwatch.org/archive/gastax.html 

14 Futch, C.R. 1966. Lisa–The Florida Black Bullet. Salt Water Fisheries Leaflet 6, Florida Board 

15 of Conservation Marine Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

16 Giuliano, W.M. and G.W. Tanner. 2005. Control and Management of Wild Hogs in Florida. 

17 WEC Publication 192, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural 

18 Sciences, Gainesville, Florida. 

19 Giuliano, W.M., J.F. Selph, K. Hodges and N. Wiley. 2007. Mourning doves in Florida. WEC 

20 Publication 226, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural 

21 Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. Golden J., R.P. Ouellette, S.Saari, and P.N. 

22 Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 

23 Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Glickman, T.S. 2000. Glossary of Meteorology. 2nd 24 ed. American Meteorological Society, 

25 Boston, MA. 

26 Golden J., R.P. Ouellette, S.Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data 

27 Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

28 Golder Associates. 2008. USACE Environmental Resource Permit Application for 

29 Transmission Corridors Associated with the Levy Nuclear Plant. Report prepared for Progress 

30 Energy, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

31 Guillory, V., H. Perry, P. Steele, T. Wagner, W. Keithly, B. Pellegrin, J. Petterson, T. Floyd, B. 

32 Buckson, L. Hartman, E. Holder, and C. Moss. 2001. The Blue Crab Fishery of the Gulf of 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-201 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Mexico, United States: A Regional Management Plan. Number 96, Gulf States Marine 

2 Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, Mississippi. 

3 Henderson, Young & Company. 2006. Impact Fees for Educational Facilities in Marion County, 

4 Florida. Accessed July 9, 2009 at 

5 http://www.marion.k12.fl.us/district/operations/assets/Docs/DocD.pdf 

6 Hildebrandt, S. 2010. Email to D. W. Baber, ICF International, from S. Hidebrandt, FDA&CS, 

7 dated April 27, 2010, regarding native flora requirements. Accession No. ML101930585. 

8 Huff, J.A. 1975. Life History of Gulf of Mexico Sturgeons, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi, in 

9 Suwannee River, Florida. Number 16, Florida Marine Research Publications, Florida 

10 Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

11 Jones, C.A., S.R. Humphrey, T.M. Padgett, R.K. Rose and J.P. Pagels. 1991. “Geographic 

12 variation and taxonomy of the southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris).” Journal of Mammalogy

13 72:263-272. 

14 Kerschner, B.A., M.S. Peterson, and R.G. Gilmore, Jr. 1985. “Ecotopic and Ontogenetic 

15 Trophic Variation in Mojarras (Pisces: Gerreidae).” Estuaries 8(3):311-322. 

16 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn). 2009. Traffic Study: Levy County Advanced 

17 Reactor Site, Levy County, Florida. Tampa, Florida. Accession No. ML091260548. 

18 Laist, D.W., and Reynolds, III, J.E. 2005. “Florida Manatees, Warm-Water Refuges, and an 

19 Uncertain Future.” Coastal Management (33):279-295. 

20 Lane, E., R.W. Hoenstine, J.W. Yon, and S.M. Spencer. 1988. Mineral Resources of Levy 

21 County, Florida. Map Series No. 116. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. 

22 Levy County Code 50-349. 2008. “Noise Regulations in General.” Code of Ordinances of Levy 

23 County, FL, codified through Ordinance No. 2008.08, enacted April 8, 2008 (Supplement No. 

24 11). 

25 Levy County. 2008a. “Infrastructure, Supporting Data and Analysis.” Chapter 7 in Levy County 

26 Comprehensive Plan . Accessed July 23, 2009 at 

27 http://www.levycounty.org/Planning/CompPlan07.pdf. 

28 Levy County. 2008b. “Future Land Use, Goals, Objectives, and Policies.” Chapter 8 in Levy 

29 County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed September 1, 2009 at 

30 http://www.levycounty.org/Planning/GOPs_08_FutureLandUse.pdf. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-202 August 2010 

1 Levy County. 2008c. Levy County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed April 20, 2010 at 

2 http://www.levycounty.org/comprehensiveplan.aspx. 

3 Levy County. 2009. “Sales Tax.” Accessed April 24, 2009 at 

4 http://levytaxcollector.com/GeneralInformation/SalesTax/tabid/687/Default.aspx. 

5 Levy County School District. 2009. Email from Jeff Edison to Polly Quick dated July 23, 2009, 

6 Providing information from Urbanomics 2007, Impact Fee Study for Levy County. 

7 Local Climatological Data (LCD). 2007. Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Columbia, 

8 South Carolina (KCAE). National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration (NOAA), U.S. 

9 Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended. 16 USC 

11 1801 et seq. 

12 Mahmoudi B. 2005. The 2005 Update of the Stock Assessment for Striped Mullet, Mugil 

13 cephalus, in Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, 

14 Florida. 

15 Marion County Budget Department. 2007. Ellspermann, David R., Clerk of the Circuit Court, 

16 “Marion County Board of Commissioners, Adopted Budget Summary, Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 

17 Accessed May 6, 2010 

18 http://www.marioncountyclerk.org/public/index.cfm?Pg=adoptedbudget1. 

19 Marion County. 2008. Marion County Comprehensive Plan. Ocala, Florida. Accessed Aril 30, 

20 2010 at http://www.marioncountyfl.org/Planning/comprehensive_plan.aspx. 

21 Marion County. 2009. Marion County Utilities Wastewater Services. Accessed July 28, 2009 

22 at http://www.marioncountyfl.org/utilities/services_wastewater.aspx. 

23 Marion County Schools. 2009. Untitled. Accessed July 6, 2009 at 

24 http://www.marion.k12.fl.us/district/operations/assets/Docs/DocG.pdf 

25 Marquez, M.R. 1994. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Kemp’s Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys 

26 kempi (Garman 1880). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-343, National Oceanic 

27 and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, Florida. 

28 Marshall, M.J. 2001. Survey: November 2001 Resurvey at the Florida Power Crystal River 

29 Generating Facility. Coastal Seas Consortium, Inc., Bradenton, Florida. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-203 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 McMillen-Jackson, A., T. Bert, J. Snook, S. Gerhart, and N. Mulkey. 2006. Stone Crab Fishery2 Independent Monitoring Program Annual Report, 2006. In-house report 2006-015, Florida Fish 

3 and Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

4 Meylan, A.B. 1999. “International Movements of Immature and Adult Hawksbill Turtles 

5 (Eretmochelys inbricata) in the Caribbean Region.” Chelonian Conservation and Biology

6 3(2):189-194. 

7 Miccosukee Tribe. 2008. Email from Steve Terry, Miccosukee Tribe, to Jessie Muir, NRC, 

8 dated December 10, 2008, regarding Scoping Process for Units 1 and 2, Levy County. 

9 Accession No. ML090120781. 

10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). 16 USC 703, et seq. 

11 Miller, James A. 1986. “Hydrogeologic Framework of the Floridan Aquifer System in Florida, 

12 and in Parts of Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina,” USGS Professional Paper 1403-B. 

13 Mote Marine Laboratory (MML). 1993. 1993 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3-Year 

14 NPDES Monitoring Project. Florida Power Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

15 Mote Marine Laboratory (MML). 1994. 1994 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3-Year 

16 NPDES Monitoring Project. Florida Power Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

17 Mote Marine Laboratory (MML). 1995. 1995 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3-Year 

18 NPDES Monitoring Project. Florida Power Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

19 Muller, R.G., T.M. Bert, and S.D. Gerhart. 2006. The 2006 Stock Assessment Update for the 

20 Stone Crab, Menippe spp., Fishery in Florida. In-house report 2006-011, Florida Fish and 

21 Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

22 Muncy, R.J. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

23 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) - pinfish. FWS/OBS-82/11.26 / TR EL-82-4, 

24 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Slidell, Louisiana and 

25 U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

26 Murphy, M.D., C.B. Guenther, and B. Mahmoudi. 2006. An Assessment of the Status of 

27 Spotted Seatrout in Florida Waters through 2005. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

28 Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

29 Murphy, M.D., A.L. McMillen-Jackson, and B. Mahmoudi. 2007. A Stock Assessment for the 

30 Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus, in Florida Waters. In-house report 2007-006, Florida Fish and 

31 Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-204 August 2010 

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

2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq. 

3 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis): Western 

4 North Atlantic Stock. Accessed March 31, 2009 at 

5 www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao1998whse-wn.pdf. 

6 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Letter from Brenda L. Mozafari, NRC, to 

7 Dale. Young, Crystal River Nuclear Plant, dated September 19, 2002, regarding Crystal River 

8 Unit 3 – Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act Regarding Sea Turtles at 

9 the Crystal River Energy Complex (TAC No. MB1562). Accession No. ML022490224. 

10 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007a. Species of Concern: Ivory bush coral, 

11 Oculina varicosa. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

12 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/ivorytreecoral_detailed.pdf. Accession No. 

13 ML101935072. 

14 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007b. Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus): 

15 North Atlantic Stock. Accessed April 9, 2009 at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2007whsp16 gmxn.pdf. Accession No. ML101930573. 

17 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007c. Humpback whale (Megaptera 

18 novaeangliae): Gulf of Maine Stock. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

19 www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm205/16%20HumpBW.pdf. Accession No. 

20 ML101930575. 

21 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008a. Species of Concern: Alabama shad, Alosa 

22 alabamae. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

23 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/alabamashad_detailed.pdf. Accession No. 

24 ML101930576. 

25 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008b. Email from Robert Hoffman, NMFS, dated 

26 December 11, 2008, regarding list of federally-protected species under the jurisdiction of NMFS 

27 for the state of Florida. Accession No. ML083510905. 

28 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009a. Cobia – NOAA Fisheries: Office of Science 

29 & Technology – Marine Recreational Statistics 2000-2008. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

30 http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/catch/species_list2.html. Accession No. 

31 ML101930569. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-205 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009b. Sand tiger shark (Carcharius Taurus) – 

2 NOAA Fisheries: Office of Science & Technology – Marine Recreational Statistics 2000-2009. 

3 Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

4 http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/catch/species_list2.html. Accession No. 

5 ML101930569. 

6 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009c. Speckled hind (Epinephelus 

7 drummondhayi) – NOAA Fisheries: Office of Science & Technology – Marine Recreational 

8 Statistics 2000-2009. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

9 http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/catch/species_list2.html. Accession No. 

10 ML101930569. 

11 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009d. Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus) – 

12 NOAA Fisheries: Office of Science & Technology – Marine Recreational Statistics 2000-2009. 

13 Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

14 http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/catch/species_list2.html. Accession No. 

15 ML101930569. 

16 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009e. Species of Concern: Saltmarsh 

17 topminnow, Fundulus jenkinsi. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

18 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/saltmarshtopminnow_detailed.pdf. Accession No. 

19 ML101930580. 

20 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009f. Species of Concern: Dusky shark, 

21 Carcharhinus obscurus. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

22 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/duskyshark_detailed.pdf. Accession No. 

23 ML101930581. 

24 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009g. Species of Concern: Largetooth sawfish, 

25 Pristis perotteti. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

26 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/largetoothsawfish_detailed.pdf. Accession No. 

27 ML101930569. 

28 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009h. Species of Concern: Night shark, 

29 Carcharhinus signatus. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

30 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/nightshark_detailed.pdf. Accession No. 

31 ML101930582. 

32 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009i. Species of Concern: Sand tiger shark, 

33 Carcharius taurus. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

34 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/sandtigershark_detailed.pdf. Accession No. 

35 ML101930583. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-206 August 2010 

1 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009j. Species of Concern: Speckled hind, 

2 Epinephelus drummondhayi. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

3 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/speckledhind_detailed.pdf. Accession No. 

4 ML101930584. 

5 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009k. Species of Concern: Warsaw grouper, 

6 Epinephelus nigritus. Accessed April 9, 2009 at 

7 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/warsawgrouper_detailed.pdf. Accession No. 

8 ML101930569. 

9 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009l. Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus). 

10 Accessed Marcy 31, 2009 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/. Accession No. 

11 ML101930569. 

12 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009m. Sea Turtle Strandings and Salvage 

13 Network (STSSN) Reports. Accessed February 3, 2009 at 

14 http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/STSSN/STSSNReportDriver.jsp. Accession No. ML101930569. 

15 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009n. Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus). 

16 Accessed Mary 31, 2009 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/. Accession No. 

17 ML101930569. 

18 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009o. Humpback Whale (Megaptera 

19 novaeangliae). Accessed March 31, 2009 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/. 

20 Accession No. ML101930569. 

21 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009p. Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys 

22 Coriacea). Accessed April 17, 2009 at 

23 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm. Accession No. ML101930917. 

24 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 1991. 

25 Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

26 Washington, D.C. 

27 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 1993. 

28 Recovery Plan for Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys Imbricata in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic 

29 Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

30 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 2008. 

31 Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta 

32 caretta), Second Revision. Accessed April 27, 2009 at 

33 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm#turtles. Accession No. ML101930618. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-207 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1989. Proceedings of the Second 

2 Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226. 

3 Panama City, Florida. 

4 National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. Environmental Impact Statement 

5 for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf 

6 of Mexico. Volume 1. Tampa, Florida. 

7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. Climate Prediction Center8 Climate Weather Linkage: Storm Tracks. Accessed November 25, 2008 at 

9 http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/stormtracks/strack_NH.shtml#publications. 

10 Accession No. ML101930588. 

11 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009a. Datums – Channel Key, FL. 

12 Station ID: 8724507. Accessed April 30, 2009 at http://co13 ops.nos.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?stn=8724507%20CHANNEL%20KEY,%20FL&type=Datum

14 s. Accession No. ML101930588. 

15 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009b. Mean Sea Level Trend 

16 8727520 Cedar Key, Florida. Accessed April 29, 2009 at http://co17 ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8727520. Accession No. 

18 ML101930588. 

19 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009c. Historical Hurricane Tracks. 

20 Available at http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/viewer.html. Accession No. ML101930588. 

21 Noll, S. and M.D. Tegeder. 2003. From Exploitation to Conservation: A History of the Marjorie 

22 Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

23 Tallahassee, Florida. 

24 Ocala/Marion County Economic Development Corporation (Ocala EDC). 2009. Community 

25 Demographic Profile. Accessed June19, 2010 at 

26 http://www.ocalaedc.org/uploads/fckeditor/files/demographic_profile.pdf. 

27 Orton, S. 2008. Cultural Resource Investigation for the LNP Site and Associated Facilities. 

28 CH2M Hill Inc, New Orleans, Louisiana. 

29 Petersen. C. 2010. Goethe State Forest Wildlife Biologist, personal communication, telephone 

30 conversation with and email to D.W. Baber (ICF International). April 9, 2010. Accession No. 

31 ML101930606. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-208 August 2010 

1 Plotkin, P.T., M.K. Wicksten, and A.F Amos. 1993. “Feeding ecology of the loggerhead sea 

2 turtle Caretta caretta in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico.” Marine Biology 115:1-15. 

3 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2001. Crystal River Unit 3 – Supplement to Biological 

4 Assessment of Impact to Endangered Sea Turtles. Accession No. ML011840181. 

5 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2003. Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental 

6 Protection Plan Report 2002 Annual Sea Turtle Report. Accession No. ML040500667. 

7 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2004. Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental 

8 Protection Plan Report 2003 Annual Sea Turtle Report. Accession No. ML050610687. 

9 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2005. Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental 

10 Protection Plan Report 2004 Annual Sea Turtle Report. Accession No. ML050610687. 

11 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2006. Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental 

12 Protection Plan Report 2005 Annual Sea Turtle Report. Accession No. ML060670364. 

13 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2007. Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental 

14 Protection Plan Report 2006 Annual Sea Turtle Report. Accession No. ML080660181. 

15 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Site 

16 Certification Application, Volumes 1 through 9. St. Petersburg, Florida. Including Amendments 

17 and Supplemental Information. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/apps.htm#ppn1. 

18 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008b. Crystal River Unit 3 – Annual Radiological 

19 Environmental Operating Report 2007. Accession No. ML081360204. 

20 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008c. Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating 

21 License Renewal Stage, Crystal River Unit 3; Progress Energy. Accession No. ML090080731. 

22 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Col Application, 

23 Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1, St. 

24 Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML092860995. 

25 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

26 September 3, 2009, regarding Supplement 5 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

27 Regarding the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML092570297. 

28 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009c. Letter from Gary Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

29 January 16, 2009, regarding Supplemental Information for Environmental Audit – Information 

30 Needs with Attachments. Accession No. ML090750823. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-209 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009d. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF to NRC, dated 

2 March 27, 2009, regarding Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

3 Environmental Review. Accession No. ML091320050. 

4 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009e. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated July 

5 29, 2009, regarding Supplement 3 to Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding 

6 the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML092240661. 

7 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009f. Letter from John Elnitsky, PEF, to NRC, dated 

8 December 14, 2009, regarding Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information 

9 Regarding the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML101470348. 

10 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009g. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

11 October 9, 2009, regarding Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information 

12 Regarding the Environmental Review – Hydrology 4.1.1.-1. Accession No. ML092920466. 

13 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009h. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated June 

14 12, 2009, regarding Supplement 1 to Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding 

15 the Environmental Review. Accession No ML091740487. 

16 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009i. Letter from John Elnitsky, PEF, to NRC, dated 

17 November 23, 2009, regarding Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

18 Environmental Review. Accession No. ML093380309. 

19 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009j. Letter from Robert Kitchen, PEF, to NRC, dated 

20 April 29, 2010, regarding Notification of Modification Submitted for LNP SCA. Accession No. 

21 ML101230331. 

22 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009k. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

23 Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

24 Accession No. ML092860737. 

25 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009l. Letter from John Elnitsky, PEF, to NRC, dated 

26 October 22, 2009, Supplement Information Related to Environmental Review – Figure Native 

27 Files. Accession No. ML093010541. 

28 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009m. Letter from John Elnitsky, PEF, to NRC, dated 

29 July 29, 2009, regarding Supplemental Information – Water Quality Sampling Data – Spring 

30 2009. Accession No. ML092150336. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-210 August 2010 

1 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009n. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

2 October 22, 2009, regarding Supplemental Information – Water Quality Sampling Data – 

3 Summer 2009. Accession No. ML093010265. 

4 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2010. Letter from John Elnitsky, PEF, to NRC, dated 

5 January 29, 2010, regarding Supplement 1 to Response to Supplemental Request for Additional 

6 Information Regarding the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML100470895 

7 Randazzo, A.F. and D.S. Jones, eds. 1997. The Geology of Florida. University Press of 

8 Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 

9 Ray, G.L. 2005. Invasive Marine and Estuarine Animals of the Gulf of Mexico. ERDC/TN 

10 ANSRP-05-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

11 Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (RENEW/FWS). 

12 2007. International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane. Recovery of Nationally Endangered 

13 Wildlife (RENEW), Ottowa, and USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

14 Richardson, T., P. Booth, H. Morin and G. Danyluk. 2010. “Case Analysis of Legionellosis, 

15 Seminole County, July 2009.” Epi Update. Florida Department of Health, Bureau of 

16 Epidemiology, Tallahasee, FL. Accessed May 24, 2010 at: 

17 http://www.doh.state.fl.us/disease_ctrl/epi/Epi_Updates/2010/March2010EpiUpdate.pdf, 

18 accessed 5/24/10. 

19 Robinette, H.R. 1983. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

20 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Bay Anchovy and Striped Anchovy. 

21 FWS/OBS-82/11.14 / TR EL-82-4, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Slidell, Louisiana and U.S. 

22 Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

23 Sagendorf, J.F., J.T. Croll, and W.F. Sandusky. 1982. XOQDOQ: Computer Program for the 

24 Meteorological Evaluations of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations. Final 

25 Report, NUREG/CR-2919. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

26 Salmon, M., T.T. Jones and K.W. Horch. 2004. “Ontogeny of Diving and Feeding Behavior in 

27 Juvenile Seaturtles: Leatherback Seaturtles (Demochelys coriacea L) and Green Seaturtles 

28 (Chelinia mydas L) in the Florida Current. Journal of Herpetology 8(1):363. 

29 Schmid, J.R. 1998. “Marine Turtle Populations on the West-central Coast of Florida: Results 

30 of Tagging Studies at the Cedar Keys, Florida, 1986-1995.” Fishery Bulletin 96:589-602. 

31 Simpfendorfer, C.A. and T.R. Wiley. 2006. National Smalltooth Sawfish Encounter Database. 

32 Technical Report 1134. Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-211 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Smith, K.N. 1993. Manatee Habitat and Human-Related Threats to Seagrass in Florida: A 

2 Review. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. 

3 Smith, Greg, Steve Koski, and Staci Richey. 2008. Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment 

4 Survey for the Levy County Nuclear Power Plant (LNP). New South Associates, Saint 

5 Augustine, Florida. 

6 Southeast Regional Climate Center (SRCC). 2010. Historical climate summaries for Florida. 

7 Accessed June 18, 2010 at http://www.sercc.com/climateinfo/historical/historical_fl.html. 

8 Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). 2004. LU04 Layer Search. 

9 Accessed May 6, 2010 at 

10 http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/data/gis/libraries/physical_dense/lu04.htm. 

11 Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). 2005. 2005 District Water 

12 Management Plan. Accessed May 6, 2010 at 

13 http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/about/watermanagementplan/. 

14 Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). 2006. Southwest Florida Water 

15 Management District, Regional Water Supply Plan. Available at 

16 http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/plans/RWSP/. 

17 Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). 2008. 2006 Estimated Water Use 

18 Report. Accessed July 28, 2009 at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/plans/rwsp/. 

19 St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 2006a. Technical Publication SJ2006-

20 1, Water Supply Assessment 2003, St. Johns River Water Management District. Palatka, 

21 Florida. Accessed July 28 2009 at 

22 http://www.sjrwmd.com/publications/pdfs/fs_watsupply_assessment.pdf. 

23 St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 2006b. Technical Publication SJ2006-

24 2, District Water Supply Plan 2005. Palatka, Florida. Accessed July 28, 2009 at 

25 http://www.sjrwmd.com/dwsp.html. 

26 Stabile, J. J.R. Waldman, F. Parauka, and I. Wirgin. 1996. “Stock Structure and Homing 

27 Fidelity in Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) Based on Restriction 

28 Fragment Length Polymorphism and Sequence Analyses of Mitochondrial DNA.” Genetics 

29 Society of America 144:767-775. 

30 State of Florida. 2002. Florida State Constitution and Amendments. State Constitution and 

31 Amendment of Section 1, Article IX (November 2002). Accessed June 19, 2010 at 

32 http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?p=2&Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-212 August 2010 

1 Steele, P. and H.M. Perry. 1990. The Blue Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico United States: a 

2 Regional Management Plan. GSMFC Publication No. 21, Gulf States Marine Fisheries 

3 Commission, Ocean Springs, Mississippi. 

4 Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1985. Crystal River 316 Studies, Final Report. 

5 Prepared for Florida Power Corporation. Stoughton, Massachusetts. 

6 Stull, R.B. 1988. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. Kluwer Academic 

7 Publishers, Boston. 

8 Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. “Early Life History Stages of Gulf Sturgeon in the 

9 Suwannee River, Florida.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:758-771. 

10 Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD). 2004. Water Supply Assessment–

11 2004. Water Resources Associates, Inc. 

12 Tipler, P.A. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, New York. 

13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Public Notice. Crystal River – Power Uprate 

14 Permit Application No. SAJ-2010-0019 (IP-TSH). May 25, 2010. Jacksonville District, Corps of 

15 Engineers, Pensacola Field Office, Florida. Accessed June 30, 2010 at: 

16 http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Regulatory/publicnotices_Florida.htm. 

17 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

18 Proposed Crystal River Unit 3, Florida Power Corporation. Accession No. ML091520178. 

19 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 1995. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Labor 

20 Force Data By County, 1995 Annual Averages. Accessed June 19, 2010 at 

21 ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucnty95.txt. Accession No. ML101930602. 

22 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Labor 

23 Force Data By County, 2005 Annual Averages. Accessed June 19, 2010 at 

24 ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucnty05.txt. Accession No. ML101930603. 

25 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2010a. Table 1: Incidence Rates of Nonfatal 

26 Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2008. Available at: 

27 http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb2071.pdf. Accession No. ML101930616. 

28 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2010b. Table 6: Incidence Rates of Nonfatal 

29 Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2004. 

30 http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/pr046fl.pdf. Accession No. ML101930616. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-213 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. 

2 Table DP-1 for Florida Counties. Accessed June 17, 2010 at 

3 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-context=qt&-qr_name=DEC_2000.... 

4 Accession No. ML101930605. 

5 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin. Accessed 

6 February 3, 2010 at www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/cenbr01-1.pdf. Accession No. 

7 ML100890583. 

8 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007a. U.S. Census Bureau 2007, County Business Patterns; 

9 For Citrus, Levy and Marion Counties. Accessed September 1, 2009 at 

10 http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html. Accession No. ML101930604. 

11 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007b. Selected Housing Characteristics 2005-2007; Levy 

12 County. Accessed July 15 2009 at 

13 http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US12075&-

14 qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-

15 _sse=on; http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-

16 geo_id=05000US12017&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-

17 ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on; 

18 http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US12083&-

19 qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-

20 redoLog=false&-_sse=on. Accession No. ML101930604. 

21 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007c. Selected Housing Characteristics 2005-2007; Marion 

22 County. Accessed July 15 2009 at 

23 http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US12075&-

24 qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-

25 _sse=on; http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-

26 geo_id=05000US12017&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-

27 ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on; 

28 http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US12083&-

29 qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR. Accession No. ML101930604. 

30 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007d. Selected Housing Characteristics 2005-2007; Citrus 

31 County. Accessed July 15 2009 at 

32 http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US12075&-

33 qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-

34 _sse=on; http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-

35 geo_id=05000US12017&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-

36 ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on; 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-214 August 2010 

1 http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US12083&-

2 qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR. Accession No. ML101930604. 

3 U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2004. “Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease 

4 Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water  United States, 2001—2002.” Morbidity and 

5 Mortality Weekly Report, October 22, 2004 / 53(SS08); 23-45. 

6 U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2006. “Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and 

7 Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water United States, 2003—2004.” Mortality Weekly 

8 Report, December 22, 2006 / 55(SS12);1-24. 

9 U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2008a. “Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and 

10 Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water Use and Other Aquatic Facility-Associated 

11 Health Events --- United States, 2005—200.6.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 

12 September 12, 2008 / 57(SS09);1-29. 

13 U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2008b. “Primary Amebic Meningoencephalitis ---

14 Arizona, Florida, and Texas, 2007.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 2008 /

15 57(21);573-577. 

16 U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2010. “Provisional cases of selected notifiable 

17 diseases, United States, weeks ending May 15, 2010, and May 16, 2009.” Morbidity and 

18 Mortality Weekly Report, May 21, 2010 / 59(19); 596-609. 

19 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. The Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, Chapter 

20 2: County Level Data. Accessed September 1, 2009 at 

21 http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Florida/i

22 ndex.asp. Accession No. ML101930601. 

23 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2010. CA1-3 Personal 

24 Income Summary Estimates. Per Capita Personal Income. Accessed June 19, 2010 at 

25 http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?selTable=CA1-3§ion=2. Accession No. 

26 ML101930600. 

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Western Ecology Division – Ecoregions of 

28 Florida – Level III and IV Ecoregions of Florida. Accessed February 24, 2010 at 

29 http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm. Accession No. ML101930594. 

30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Sole Source Aquifers in the Southeast. 

31 Available at http://www.epa.gov/Region4/water/groundwater/r4ssa.html. Accession No. 

32 ML101930595. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-215 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding 

2 Population of the Wood Stork. Atlanta, Georgia. 

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red-Cockaded 

4 Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Second Revision, Atlanta, Georgia. 

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008a. Federally Listed Species in Levy County, Florida. 

6 Accessed June 8, 2009 at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/CountyList/Levy.htm. Accession No. 

7 ML101930599. 

8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008b. West Indian Manatee: Trichechus manatus. 

9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program, Atlanta, Georgia. 

10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009a. Florida County Index of Listed Species, North 

11 Florida Ecological Field Office – Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter, Lake, Hernando, Pinellas, and 

12 Hillsborough Counties. Accessed January 22, 2009 at 

13 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/gotocty.htm. Accession No. ML101930613. 

14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009b. Federally Listed & Candidate Species in Polk 

15 County, Florida – Updated February 22, 2008. Accessed January 22, 2009 

16 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/Polk%20County2.pdf. Accession No. 

17 ML101930598. 

18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010a. Atlantic Flyway. Accessed May 12, 2010 at 

19 http://www.pacificflyway.gov/Documents/Atlantic_map.pdf. Accession No. ML101930596. 

20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010b. Whooping Crane Fact Sheet. Accessed April 8, 

21 2010 at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WhoopingCrane/whoopingcrane-fact-2001.htm. 

22 Accession No. ML101930597. 

23 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2009a. Bad Bug Book: Foodborne Pathogenic 

24 Microorganisms and Natural Toxins: Salmonella spp. Accessed December 21, 2009 at 

25 http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodborneIllness/FoodborneIllnessFoodbornePathogensN

26 aturalToxins/BadBugBook/ucm069966.htm. 

27 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2009b. Bad Bug Book: Foodborne Pathogenic 

28 Microorganisms and Natural Toxins: Shigella spp. Accessed December 21, 2009 at 

29 http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodborneIllness/FoodborneIllnessFoodbornePathogensN

30 aturalToxins/BadBugBook/ucm070563.htm. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-216 August 2010 

1 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Alabama, 

2 Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina HA 730-G. Ed. J.A. Miller, Reston, Virginia. Available at 

3 http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_g/index.html. Accession No. ML101930591. 

4 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008a. Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, 

5 West-Central Florida, May 2007. USGS Open File Report 2008-1105. Reston, Virginia. 

6 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008b. USGS Groundwater Data for the Nation. Accessed 

7 October 27, 2008 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gw. Accession No. ML101930593. 

8 U. S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

9 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. Cambridge University Press, New 

10 York. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us11 impacts. 

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.109 – Calculation of 

13 Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating 

14 Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Rev. 1, Washington, D.C. 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for 

16 Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 

17 1.145, Rev. 1, Washington, D.C. 

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

19 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

21 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. 

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan— 

23 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, 

24 Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Attendance at NRC Staff Sponsored 

26 Meetings. Management Directive 3.5. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc27 collections/management-directives/volumes/vol-3.html. 

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Meteorological Monitoring Programs for 

29 Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.23, Rev. 1, Washington, D.C. 
Affected Environment 

August 2010 2-217 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007c. Memorandum and Order (CLI-07-27) in 

2 the Matter of Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. (Early Site Permit for North Anna ESP Site), 

3 November 20, 2007. Docket No. 52-008-ESP. Accession No. ML082521051. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007d. Tornado Climatology of the Contiguous 

5 United States. NUREG/CR-4461, Rev 2, Washington, D.C. 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Letter from Gregory Hatchett, NRC, to 

7 Billy Cypress, Miccosukee Tribe, Chairman, dated November 5, 2008, regarding Request for 

8 Participation in the Scoping Process for the Environmental Review of the Levy County, Units 1 

9 and 2, Combined License Application. Accession No. ML082740531. 

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Letter from Gregory Hatchett, NRC to 

11 Mitchell Cypress, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Chairman, dated November 5, 2008, regarding 

12 Request for Participation in the Scoping Process for the Environmental Review of the Levy 

13 County, Units 1 and 2, Combined License Application. Accession No. ML082740536. 

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Summary of the Environmental Site Audit 

15 and Alternative Sites Visit Related to the Review of the Combined License Application for Levy 

16 Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. July 24, 2009. Accession No. ML091250294. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. Socioeconomic Field Notes for August 

18 20-21, 2007 and December 2-3, 2008 Visits to Levy County and Surrounding Communities. 

19 Accession No. ML091290001. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009c. Letter from Robert Schaaf, NRC, to Chief 

21 Micco Bobby John Bearheart, Perdido Bay Tribe, Southeastern Lower Muscogee Creek Indians, 

22 Chief, dated August 31, 2009, regarding Request for Information for the Environmental Review 

23 of the Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Combined License Application. Accession No. 

24 ML092120271. 

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009d. Letter from Robert Schaaf, NRC to Steve 

26 Terry, Miccosukee Tribe, NAGPRA & Section 106 Representative, dated August 25, 2009, 

27 regarding Response to Scoping Process Comments to Support Development of an 

28 Environmental Impact Statement for the Combined License Application for the Levy Nuclear 

29 Plant Units 1 and 2 Levy County, Florida. Accession No. ML092120229. 

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Letter from Robert Schaaf, NRC, to Ann 

31 Tucker, Muscogee Nation of Florida, dated May 27, 2010, regarding Request for Comments on 

32 the Environmental Review of the Levy Nuclear plant Units 1 and 2 Combined License 

33 Application. Accession No. ML101370530. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1941 2-218 August 2010 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Letter from Robert Schaaf, NRC, to 

2 Leonard Harjo, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, dated May 27, 2010, regarding Request for 

3 Comments on the Environmental Review of the Levy Nuclear plant Units 1 and 2 Combined 

4 License Application. Accession No. ML101310622. 

5 Waggy, G.L., M.S. Peterson, and B.H. Comyns. 2007. “Feeding Habits and Mouth Morphology 

6 of Young Silver Perch (Bairdiella chrysoura) from the North-Central Gulf of Mexico.” 

7 Southeastern Naturalist 6(4):743-751. 

8 Ward, J.P. and D.R. Jackson. 2008. “Pseudemys concinna (Le Conte 1830) – River Cooter.” 

9 In Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the 

10 IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. A.G.J. Rhodin, et al., eds. 

11 Chelonian Research Monographs No. 5. Chelonian Research Foundation, Lunenburg, 

12 Massachusetts. 

13 White, William B. 1988. Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrains. New York, Oxford 

14 University Press. 

15 Wilson, Emily. 2010. Personal communication between Emily Wilson, Levy County Health 

16 Department, and William Mendez, ICF International, on May 21, 2010 regarding waterborne 

17 disease outbreaks. Accession ML101930590. 

18 Yoder, J.S., B. A. Eddy, G. S. Visvesvara, L. Capewell and M. J. Beach. 2010. “The 

19 Epidemiology of Primary Amoebic Meningoencephalitis in the USA, 1962–2008." Epidemiology 

20 and Infection, 138(7):968-915. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991014.