Re: FPL Port Everglades Energy Center

Audra Livergood to: Andrew Parks 11/09/2012 01:24 PM

Dear Andrew,

I agree with their "likely to adversely affect" determinations for loggerhead, green, and 

hawksbill sea turtles. I believe they were too broad in their "no effect" determinations for some 

species under our purview; however, it would be premature for me to make my determinations at 

this time since our biological opinion will serve as NMFS' official effect determinations for 

listed species under our purview.

I will make a note in the record and in our biological opinion that EPA concurs with the effect 

determinations that were made in the BA. This consultation is a bit unorthodox. Technically, it 

is the Action Agency who is supposed to make the initial effect deteminations, and NMFS either 

concurs (or not) with those determinations.

Best regards,

Audra

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, <Parks.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov> wrote:

OK, as I said I have no reason not to concur with the BA determinations, as they seem 

to be straight forward. However, we are really relying upon you and your specialized 

experience to advise us on what might be cause for not agreeing with the 

determinations, if anything. If you think the determinations are adequate, I believe we 

would agree.

Andrew B. Parks, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IV

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-8122

Fax: 404-562-9019

Audra Livergood ---11/09/2012 11:00:04 AM---Hi Andrew, This is a formal 

consultation because take is occurring at the plant,

From: Audra Livergood <audra.livergood@noaa.gov>

To: Andrew Parks/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 11/09/2012 11:00 AM

Subject: Re: FPL Port Everglades Energy Center

Hi Andrew,

This is a formal consultation because take is occurring at the plant, regardless of whether the 

turtles are previously injured or not prior to entering the intake wells. They are still getting 

entrained in the wells. Some are able to leave the wells on their own, others are not. The point 

is FPL does not have authorization for the take that is occurring and will continue to occur at 

the plant, which is why we need to write a biological opinion with an Incidental Take 

Statement (ITS). Once they have our biological opinion, they will be authorized to take turtles 

so long as they are in compliance with the ITS, Reasonable and Prudent Measures, and Terms 

& Conditions within the biological opinion.

If any of this is unclear, we can discuss further. FPL acknowledged in their BA that the 

proposed action "may affect and is likely to adversely affect" loggerhead, green, and hawksbill 

sea turtles. 

Because the ESA Section 7 consultation is between NMFS and EPA, we need to know if EPA 

concurs with FPL's determinations in the BA. We also need to know if EPA concurs with 

FPL's determination that the proposed action "will not jeopardize the continued existence" of 

green, loggerhead, and hawksbill sea turtles.

In addition, we need a statement from the EPA requesting formal consultation with NMFS.

Thank you,

Audra

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:12 AM, <Parks.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov> wrote: 

Hey Audra, assuming there is an agreed determination of no adverse impact, 

why would there need to be a formal consultation with NMFS?

Andrew B. Parks, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IV

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-8122

Fax: 404-562-9019
Audra Livergood ---11/08/2012 02:58:51 PM---Dear Andrew, In the attached 

August 31, 2012 cover letter to FPL's Biological Assessment

From: Audra Livergood <audra.livergood@noaa.gov>

To: Andrew Parks/R4/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 11/08/2012 02:58 PM

Subject: FPL Port Everglades Energy Center

Dear Andrew,

In the attached August 31, 2012 cover letter to FPL's Biological Assessment (BA) and 

in their BA, FPL determined that the proposed action would have no effect on 13 

species under NMFS' purview (see page 2 of attached letter). Furthermore, FPL 

determined that the proposed action "may affect, and is likely to adversely affect" 

green, loggerhead, and hawksbill sea turtles.

Because the ESA Section 7 consultation is between NMFS and EPA, we need to know 

if EPA concurs with FPL's determinations. We also need to know if EPA concurs with 

FPL's determination that the proposed action "will not jeopardize the continued 

existence" of green, loggerhead, and hawksbill sea turtles.

In addition, we need a statement from the EPA requesting formal consultation with 

NMFS.

You may provide your response in an e-mail.

Thank you,

Audra

-- 

Audra Livergood

Marine Resource Manager

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

SERO Protected Resources Division

Fort Lauderdale Field Office

299 East Broward Blvd., Suite 328

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Office (954) 356-7100

Fax (954) 356-7108

For if one link in nature's chain might be lost, another might be lost, until the 

whole of things will vanish by piecemeal.    Thomas Jefferson
[attachment "PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev. 0.pdf" deleted by Andrew 

Parks/R4/USEPA/US] 

-- 

Audra Livergood

Marine Resource Manager

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

SERO Protected Resources Division

Fort Lauderdale Field Office

299 East Broward Blvd., Suite 328

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Office (954) 356-7100

Fax (954) 356-7108

For if one link in nature's chain might be lost, another might be lost, until the whole 

of things will vanish by piecemeal.    Thomas Jefferson

-- 

Audra Livergood

Marine Resource Manager

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

SERO Protected Resources Division

Fort Lauderdale Field Office

299 East Broward Blvd., Suite 328

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Office (954) 356-7100

Fax (954) 356-7108

For if one link in nature's chain might be lost, another might be lost, until the whole of things will 

vanish by piecemeal.    Thomas Jefferson