## BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PORT EVERGLADES NEXT GENERATION CLEAN ENERGY CENTER

Public Consultation Tracking System (PCTS) 2012/00657 Prepared for: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

– National Marine Fisheries S ervice Southeast Regional Office 263 13 th 

### Avenue South St

. Petersburg, FL 33701 Prepared by Inwater Research Group on behalf of: United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303

- 8960August 2012 i 113

- 87 618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND / HISTORY

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 1.1 Purpose

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1 1.2 Existing an d Physical Conditions

................................ ................................ ................. 2 1.3 FPL’s Existing Environmental Programs

................................ ................................ ..... 4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE A CTION AND ACTION ARE A

................................ ..................... 5 2.1 The Proposed Action

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 2.2 The Action Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 9 8 2.3 Project Benefits

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 9 3.0 LISTED SPECIES AND C RITICAL HABITAT IN T HE ACTION AREA

................. 11 11 10 3.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle ( Caretta caretta )

................................ ........................... 12 11 10 3.1.1 General Information

................................ ................................ .................. 12 11 3.1.2 Plant Specific Information

................................ ................................ .... 13 12 11 3.2 Green Sea Turtle ( Chelonia mydas )

................................ ................................ ... 13 13 12 3.2.1 General Information

................................ ................................ .............. 13 13 12 3.2.2 Plant Specific Information

................................ ................................ ........ 14 13 3.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea )

................................ ................... 15 14 3.3.1 General Information

................................ ................................ .................. 15 14 3.3.2 Plant Specific Information

................................ ................................ ........ 15 14 3.4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata )

................................ ................ 16 15 14 3.4.1 General Information

................................ ................................ .............. 16 15 14 3.4.2 Plant Specific Information

................................ ................................ ........ 16 15 3.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii )

................................ .............. 17 16 15 3.5.1 General Information

................................ ................................ .............. 17 16 15 3.5.2 Plant Specific Information

................................ ................................ .... 18 17 16 3.6 Smalltooth Sawfish ( Pristis pectinata )

................................ ................................ ... 18 17 3.6.1 General Information

................................ ................................ .................. 18 17 3.6.2 Plant Specific Information

................................ ................................ .... 19 18 17 3.7 Johnson’s Seagrass ( Halophila johnsonii )

................................ ............................. 19 18 3.7.1 General Information

................................ ................................ .................. 19 18 3.7.2 Plant Specific Information

................................ ................................ ........ 19 18 3.8 Other Li sted Species

................................ ................................ ........................... 20 19 18 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELI NE CONDITIONS

................................ ......................... 20 19 18 4.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle ( Caretta caretta )

................................ ............................... 20 19 4.2 Green Sea Turtle ( Chelonia mydas )

................................ ................................ ....... 21 20 4.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea )

................................ ............... 23 22 21 4.4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata )

................................ .................... 23 22 4.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii )

................................ .............. 24 23 22 4.6 Smalltooth Sawfis h ( Pristis pectinata )

................................ ............................... 25 24 23 4.7 Johnson’s Seagrass ( Halophila johnsonii )

................................ ............................. 25 24 5.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPO SED ACTION

................................ ................................ ........ 26 25 5.1 Overview of the Proposed Action

................................ ................................ .......... 26 25 5.1.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle ( Caretta caretta )

................................ .................. 27 26 5 .1.2 Green Sea Turtle ( Chelonia mydas )

................................ ...................... 28 27 26 5.1.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea )

................................ .. 28 27 26 5.1.4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle ( Ere tmochelys imbricata )

................................ ....... 28 27August 2012 ii 113

- 87 618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc

5.1.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii )

................................ ..... 28 27 5.1.6 Unidentified Sea Turtle Species

................................ ................................ 28 27 5.1.7 Smalltooth Sawfish ( Pristis pectinata )

................................ ...................... 28 27 5.1.8 Johnson’s Seagrass ( Halophila johnsonii )

................................ ............ 29 28 27 5.2 Changes in Potential Effects Under the Proposed Action

................................ ...... 29 28 5.2.1 Changes During the Construction Phase of PEEC

................................ .... 29 28 5.2.2 Changes During Operation of PEEC

................................ ......................... 29 28 5.3 Minimization of Potential Impacts and Conservation Efforts under the Proposed Action

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 30 29 5.3.1 Minimization

................................ ................................ ......................... 30 30 29 5.3.2 Conservation Efforts

................................ ................................ ............. 32 31 30 6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

................................ ................................ ................................ . 32 31 7.0 CONCLUSIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 33 32 8.0 LITERATURE CITED

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 35 34

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF

THE NATIONAL MA RINE FISHERIES SERVICE IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC Table 2 SUMMARY OF SEA TURTLE ENCOUNTERS IN THE PORT EVERGLADES PLANT

INTAKE CANAL SYSTEM 1990 THROUGH 2012

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 General Location of the FPL Port Everglades Plant Figure 2 FPL Port Everglad es Plant (PPE) Figure 3 Typical Intake Structure Figure 4 Typical “3 on 1” Combined Cycle Unit Figure 5 Action Area Boundary Figure 6 Broward County Sawfish Encounters 2001 through 2012 Figure 7 Port Everglades Submerged Aquatic Vegetation MapAugust 2012 iii 113

- 87 618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc ABBREVIAT IONS AND ACRONYMS

BA Biological Assessment BTU British Thermal Unit
cm c entimeter CO 2 carbon dioxide CPUE Catch per Unit Effort EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protect ion FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FLUCFCS Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System FPL Florida Power & Light Company fps feet per second ft feet FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ICW Intracoastal Waterw ay INBS Index Nesting Beach Survey IWW Industrial Wastewater IRG Inwater Research Group km kilometer MGD million gallons per day MW megawatt NO x nitrogen oxides NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administ ration PCTS Public Consultation Tracking System PM particulate matter PM 10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic particle size of 10 μm or less PPE Port Everglades Plant PEEC Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center SAC Southport Access C hannel SERMANAT 

### Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (in Spanish: Secretaría

del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales ) SCL straight carapace length SO 2 sulfur dioxide STSSN Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network TN Turning Notch ULSD ultra

- low sulfur distillate USACE U.S

. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S

. Fish and Wildlife ServicesAugust 2012 1 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 

### 1.0 BACKGROUND / HISTORY This section provides the Biological Assessment (BA) purpose and includes informal consultation history

. It also describes th e existing facility to be modernized and a background on existing FPL environmental programs.

1.1 Purpose The purpose of this BA is to address the effect of the Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center (PEEC) Proj ect (the Project) on species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their designated critical habitat

. The Project involves the modernization of the existing Port Everglades Plant into a highly efficient, lower emissi on next generation clean energy center using the latest combined cycle technology

. Four existing primarily oil

- fired units will be replaced with a single nominal 1,250 megawatt (MW) 3

- on
- 1 combined cycle unit fueled primarily by natural gas. The Project is located within the boundaries of the City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida

. The lead federal agency for this Project is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4, under the authority of the Clean Air Act

. In a letter dated Febru ary 22, 2012, the EPA requested an informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S

. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under Section 7 of the ESA to address concerns regarding the potential effects of the proposed Project on listed species and their critical habitat

. On March 29, 2012, NMFS recommended that EPA prepare a BA on the listed species that may occur in the Action Area, as defined in Section 2.2 below

. EPA designated FPL as the non

- federal agent and asked FPL to prepare the BA on behalf of EPA

. FPL hired Inwater Research Group (IRG) to prepare the BA

. The following is the list of species, provided by NMFS, which may occur in the Action Area:

 Green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas )

 Loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta care tta )

 Hawksbill sea turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata )

 Leatherback sea turtle ( Dermochelys corieca )

 Kemp's Ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii )

 Smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata )

 Johnson’s seagrass ( Halophila johnsonii ) Johnson’s seagrass has been ident ified to exist in the Action Area. Table 1 presents further detail and the comprehensive list of all species

.August 2012 2 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc Early coordination with NMFS was conducted via a teleconference on June 7, 2012 with

re presentatives from NMFS, FPL and IRG

. FPL also hosted a visit to the Project site on July 17, 2012 attended by NMFS, FPL and IRG

. Early coordination with U .S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) was facilitated by a follow

- up email from EPA dated April 25, 2012

. Based on responsive correspondence from FWS to EPA on May 3, 2012, no further action is required regarding listed species under their jurisdiction

. This BA addresses the proposed action in compliance with Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended

. Section 7 of the ESA assures that, through consulta tion with the NMFS and/or the FWS, federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered or proposed listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

1.2 Existing and Physical Conditions

The FPL Port Everglades Plant (PPE) sits on 92.5 acres of land in Broward County located in the mid

- port section within the jurisdictional area of Port Everglades (the Port) ( Figures 1 and 2)

. The Plant has convenient access to State Road 84 and Interstate

- 5 95 and is locally accessible by Eller Drive to the south

. Roadways that surround the Plant include S.E

. 14 th Avenue to the eas t, Eisenhower Drive to the west and S.E

. 26 th Street to the north

. The Port entrance channel and the Intracoastal Waterway (IC W) are approximately 0.5 miles to the east of the FPL property

. Prior to the development of the Port for its current activities (power generation, fuel storage and distribution, intermodal shipping, milit ary and homeland security and tourism), a majority o f the Port Everglades property was submerged lands and required extensive civil modifications to reach its current operating capacity

. The current design and capacity of the Port is under modification and has a number of civil activities planned to furthe r redesign and retrofit the Port to accommodate a greater number of ships and to increase the types/sizes of ships

. These activities include modifications of the existing piers and berths , addition of new piers and berths , as well as deepening of the ICW , inlet and turning basin . The Port is a major commercial shipping port located immediately west of the Port Everglades Inlet

. Cargo statistics for 2011 include a total of 4,183 ship visits, 5,787,961 tons of container cargo and 15,325,199 tons of petrol eum products

. It is also a major passenger cruise port, where 3,952,843 single and multi

- day passengers embarked in 2011 ( Broward County, 2011 )

. Operations and activities at the Port have the potential to impact organisms and influence environmental con ditions encountered at PPE

. Comment [KB1]: This is more of a note to myself, but I checked the ESA definition of “cumulative effects.” Cumulative effects are the effects of future state, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area
. Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considere d in the cumulative effects analysis because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. Thus, we would not consider effects on listed species in the cumulative effects analysis of a biological opinion for this project, based on the definition above. Comment [FPL2]: Subject for discussionAugust 2012 3 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc PPE is a series of four 1960s vintage oil and natural gas

- fired steam electric units consisting of two nominal 200 MW and two nominal 400 MW units (Units 1 through 4)

. Units 1 and 2 began operation in 1960 and 1961, respectivel y . The commercial in

- service dates for Units 3 and 4 were 1964 and 1965, respectively

. All four units have remained in service since these dates

. Units 1 through 4 are authorized pursuant to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Final Ti tle V Permit 0110036

- 009

- AV to operate on natural gas, No

. 6 fuel oil, No

. 2 fuel oil, propane and, on specification, used oil from FPL operations

. The air emissions from each unit are exhausted through four separate approximately 343 foot (ft) tall sta cks

. PPE currently has fueling infrastructure on FPL property (piping and storage) and on Port property through offsite linear facilities (piping and loading infrastructure)

. From 2000 through 2012, a total of 274 vessels made fuel deliveries to PPE und er the currently reduced operational capacity

. This equates to the requirement of over 22 fuel barges per year entering and leaving the Port for the purposes of maintaining the necessary fuel for reliable operations.

PPE utilizes once

- through cooling wate r for condenser and auxiliary cooling. PPE withdraws and discharges to the waters influenced by Port activities. The once

- through cooling water system is currently authorized to operate under FDEP Industrial Wastewater (IWW) Permit No

. FL0001538 and Bro ward County Permit IW

- 2010

- 0150

. FPL has submitted a substantial revision application to modify the IWW Permit for PEEC. The Broward County permit is being incorporated into the state license that will be issued by FDEP under the Power Plant Siting Act. The cooling water system has several components that allow for the withdrawal of marine water from Port Slip No. 3 and discharging that same water through the existing dischar ge canal into the ICW (Figure 2)

. Portions of the intake and discharge canals are located on Port property which limits accessibility

. Port Slip No

. 3 is connected to the Port Everglades Turning Basin

. The slip is dredged to approximately 38 ft and has bulkheads along three sides

. There is no submerged aquatic vegetation

or eme rgent wetland habitat in the Port Everglades Turning Basin or Slip No

. 3

. These areas do not provide significant spawning sites, food production, nursery areas, or migratory pathways for aquatic organisms

.
At t he p oint where the intake withdraw s coolin g water at Port Slip No

. 3 are four, 12 ft diameter, 244 ft long reinforced concrete pipes with centerlines seven ft below mean low water. The velocity at the point of withdrawal for PPE is approximately 4.4 feet per second (fps). The intake pipes are

c onnected to a 2,100 ft canal that guides the water to the existing intake structures. The intake canal average velocity is approximately 2.1 fps. Comment [KB3]: Is FDEP coor dinating with FWC to make sure that FWC’s concerns are addressed and their recommendations are included in the state license? When will the state license be issued? Comment [FPL4]: Discuss to understand correct processAugust 2012 4 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc The intake structure has se veral compo nents (Figure 3)

. The concrete structure s that separate the cool ing water flow for each unit have four intake wells

. Within each intake well, vertical coarse bar racks allow water to flow into the cooling system but stop any large debris

. A series of rakes that move along the coarse bar racks are utilized to remove the l arge debris

. Prior to activating the rakes to clean the racks, the intake wells and racks are visually inspected by PPE personnel for the presence of turtles. Beyond the bar racks, there are stop logs and sluice gates for access to the center portion of the intake well, and an automated traveling screen that collects and removes the smaller debris as the water passes through. These collection systems ensure that debris that could be potentially harmful to operations is removed from the cooling water

. The authorized average flow for the existing units is 1,296 million gallons per day (MGD) and is split between intake wells that are dedicated to each of the existing units . PPE has operated at this location for over 45 years using a once
- through cooling system. Once through the facility , the approximately 14 degree Fahrenheit warmer water enters the 4,850 ft long discharge canal that connects to the ICW

. Since the PPE thermal discharge existed on July 1, 1972, it is subject to the thermal surface water criteria established by FDEP Rule 62

- 302.520(1)

. Previous biological studies (Envirosphere 1987; Applied Biology Inc. , 1987) have found no adverse impact from the existing thermal discharge on fish, shellfish, or plankton from operation of Units 1 throu gh 4 , and the studies found no impact to benthos outside the discharge canal

. Within the discharge canal , the impacts were seasonal and temporary

. Where the discharge enters the ICW, the water is relatively deep and the channel is maintained by dredging. The shoreline is protected with bulkheads and armoring. Consequently, there is no significant submerged aquatic vegetation or wetlands along the western shoreline of the ICW, where the heated water enters the ICW. Also, this area does not provide signi ficant spawning sites, food production, nursery areas or migratory pathways for aquatic organisms. Previous thermal discharge modeling showed that the heated water, as it enters the ICW, stratifies and remains at the surface. This reduces potential impac ts to benthic communities and provides passage for fish and other aquatic organisms.

1.3 FPL’s Existing Environmental Programs

To enhance its commitment to sustainable operations, FPL adopts environmental policies and programs at the local level, where it can monitor the impact of existing operations and the potential impact of future operations on wildlife

. FPL has an avian protection plan, manatee protection plans, a crocodile monitoring program, corporate endangered species management procedures and a scrub

- jay habitat vegetation management plan

. At this and other facilities, FPL has a demonstrated history of Comment [KB5]: These studies are old. Have there been any recent studies? Comment [FPL6]: NoAugust 2012 5 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc environmental stewardship that has supported the rehabilitation of injured sea turtles

. Sea turtles in various conditions of fitness have been observ ed in the PPE intake canal over the years

. The current intake monitoring procedure at the existing facility has been successful at minimizing impacts to sea turtles. The procedure requires that all intake wells are monitored four times in a 24 hour per iod for the presence of sea turtles

. If a dead or injured turtle is found in the intake system , FPL notifies Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) via the emergency hotline. Once FWC personnel or a member of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) arrives at the site, the turtle is removed from the intake system. If FWC is unable to respond to the call, FPL waits for further direction from FWC. For each encounter, site personnel record the location, species, size, and condition of the sea turtle. During the years where FPL has a recorded history of sea turtle encounters (1990 to 2012) there were 29 documented turtles recovered from the intake canal. Twelve of those were determined to be dead prior to arrival in the intake system, with most being moderately to severely decomposed. Eight of the turtles recovered were found with pre
- existing injuries requiring rehabilitation. These injured turtles benefited from PPE’s operation because they were able to escape the P ort area, be transport ed to a rehabilitation facility and get the veterinary attention they needed to improve their chance for survival

. Nine turtles were captured, evaluated and found to have no si gnificant injury or abnormality and were released back to the environment on the same day.



### 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE A CTION AND ACTION ARE A
This Section provides a description of the proposed action, P roject features that reduce or eliminate environmental impacts, key P roject components and their operation and P roj ect benefits

. The Action Area is also defined in this Section as PPE , its circulating water system, the receiving water body in fluenced by the plant discharge and the adjacent aquatic and shoreline habitats.

2.1 The Proposed Action The proposed action is the dismantlement of the four existing units at PPE and the construction and operation of the new PEEC , a nominal 1250 MW “3 on 1” combined cycle unit (Figure 4)

. The E e xisting infrastructure at for PPE, including access roads, right s
- of

- way for fueling inf rastructure, natural gas transportation to PPE , potable water supplies, phone and fiber infrastructure, access to the FPL transmission system and cooling

- water intake and discharge structures will utilized in maximize the re development of PEEC PPE while mi n imizing environmental, land use and cost impacts

.
Pre

- Dismantlement Phase: Comment [KB7]: How and how often does FPL inspect the intake canal? Comment [FPL8]: FPL visually monitored the intake wells every 6 hours (4 times in a 24 hour period). Comment [KB9]: We may require simultaneous monitoring of intake canal and wells every 4 instead of every 6 hours. Comment [FPL10]: Eighty percent of the intake canal is not accessible by land. Monitoring the inaccessible areas of the canal would provide little benefit since there are no structures, equipment or activities in this area of the canal that could jeopardize turtles. Mo nitoring the entire intake canal would also pose an increase in risk from an employee safety perspective. Additionally, during non
- daylight hours only the intake structure would be visible with the restricted plant lighting. As discussed in Comment [FPL26 ] FPL will increase the monitoring to every 4 hours (6 times in a 24 hour period) as a conservation effort. In the event a turtle is observed in the intake well, FPL will take appropriate action as spelled out in the proposed procedure (to be reviewed by N MFS and FWC). Since these turtles are able to swim out of the intake canal on their own (see Comment [FPL110]), it is not necessary to remove healthy turtles swimming in the intake canal as there is potential to injure the turtles during the retrieval pro cess. Comment [KB11]: Does FPL only contact FWC if the turtle appears to be dead or injured? Or, does FPL contact FWC in every case when a turtle is found in the intake canal or well? Comment [FPL12]: FPL contacts FWC whenever a turtle is in the well and is either seemingly injured or fatigued or when an active turtle does not leave the well even after turning off one of the two cooling water pumps. At all times,

... Comment [KB13]: Note for Audra: An average of 1.3 turtles per year. Comment [FPL14]: Comment acknowledged Comment [KB15]: See Table 2 for cause of injury for each turtle. Comment [FPL16]: Comment acknowledged Comment [KB17]: Does FPL have data on the size, species, and condition for these 9 turtles? Comment [FPL18]: Of the 9 turtles that were released back to the environment, all had no significant injuries or abnormalities. No

... Comment [KB19]: Where were they released? Back to the ICW? Did FWC release them? Comment [FPL20]: Since 2008, when FPL has released the turtles, they have been released in the discharge canal at the first bend leading to the ICW. Comment [KB21]: Note for this whole section: It would be helpful to divide this section into “during construction” and “post construction.” As is, it is

... Comment [FPL22]: Re

- Organized and edited to clarify phases of projectAugust 2012 6 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc Prior to the dismantlement of PPE, FPL will install a Manatee Temporary Heating System

. The system w ill include a 12 million BTU per hour heating system to continue to provide a manatee refuge by discharging warm water

. The manatee refuge will be located within the existing cooling water discharge canal

. Dismantlement and Construction Phase s : During the dismantlement of the existing units there will be a number of activities at the PEEC site and the surrounding FPL property to prepare for construction and eventually commercial operation

. These activities include the removal of the existing power block and associated facilities (tanks, piping, support buildings, etc .). During th e dismantlement and the majority of the construction phase , the existing withdrawal of cooling water system will not be operational. The condenser cooling water will begin testing and commissioning in the fourth quarter of 2015. During the dismantlement o f PPE there will be a number of activities at the PEEC site and on the surrounding FPL property to prepare for construction and eventually commercial operation

. These activities include the removal of the existing power block and associated facilities (ta nks, piping, support buildings, etc .). During the dismantlement and construction, the existing withdrawal of cooling water through the cooling water system will cease for approximately three years. Also during the dismantlement and construction phases , FPL will be installing a Manatee Temporary Heating System

. The proposed system would include a 12 million BTU per hour heating system to continue to provide a manatee refuge by discharging warm water

. The manatee refuge will be located within the existi ng cooling water discharge canal

.
P lant Operation al Phase : Primary water uses at the new PEEC will be for cooling water and process makeup water

. Cooling water is required for condenser cooling and auxiliary equipment cooling

. Condenser cooling for PEE C will be accomplished using the existing infrastructure of the Units 3 and 4 once

- through cooling system intake and discharge structures which withdraw from Port Slip No. 3 and discharge through a canal connected to the ICW. The average flow for PEEC wi ll be 635 MGD once the plant is fully commissioned and in operation , while the flow for the existing units is authorized for 1,296 MGD

. Because the design intake flow for PEEC will be approximately one

- half of PPE’s intake flow, the existing intake infras tructure can be used for PEEC with lower cooling water requirements

. Therefore, the point of intake velocity and the intake canal flow velocity will be approximately 51 Comment [KB23]: This statement seems to contradict the statement below that indicates use of the existing infrastructure of Units 3 and 4. Comment [FPL24]: Units 3&4 Intakes will be re
- used, but the condenser cooling pumps will not be operating from 2/1/13 to the 4 th quarter of 2015.August 2012 7 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc percent lower at the 635 MGD flow rate

. The velocity at the culverts will be approxim ately 2.17 fps and the average velocity within the intake canal is approximately 1.0 fps

. The flow reduction will decrease potential impingement and entrainment by approximately 50 percent. To further mitigate possible effects of the PEEC cooling water withdrawals, FPL will install state

- of

- the

- art traveling screens with an aquatic organism return system in the existing Unit 3 and 4 intake structures to minimize fish and shellfish impingement mortality

. The traveling screens will incorporate protective measures including modified Ristroph

- type screens with collection buckets (or equivalent) designed to minimize turbulence to aquatic organisms and a guard rail or barrier to prevent loss of aquatic organisms from the collection bucket

. The screen panels will use smooth woven mesh (or equivalent) to prevent abrasion of the aquatic organisms

. The screen wash will use a dual spray system (or equivalent) with a low pressure wash to remove organisms prior to a high pressure wash to remove trash

. The aquatic organism return system will return the organisms to the source water in a manner that minimizes predation or re

- impingement. Condenser cooling for PEEC will be accomplished using the existing infrastructure of the Units 3 and 4 once

- through cooling syste m intake and discharge structures which withdraw from Port Slip No. 3 and discharge through a canal connected to the ICW

. The average flow for PEEC will be 635 MGD , while the flow for the existing units is authorized for 1,296 MGD

. Because the desig n intake flow for PEEC will be approximately one

- half of PPE’s intake flow, the existing intake infrastructure can be used for PEEC with lower cooling water requirements

. Therefore, the point of intake velocity and the intake canal flow velocity will be a pproximately 51 percent lower at the 635 MGD flow rate

. The velocity at the culverts will be approximately 2.17 fps and the average velocity within the intake canal is approximately 1.0 fps

. Primary water uses at PEEC will be for cooling water and proce ss water

. Cooling water is required for condenser cooling and auxiliary equipment cooling

. Condenser cooling will be accomplished using the existing once

- through cooling water system intake and discharge infrastructure

. The flow reduction will decrease potential impingement and entrainment by approximately 50 percent

. To further mitigate possible effects of the PEEC cooling water withdrawals, FPL will install state

- of

- the

art traveling screens with an aquatic organism return system in the existing Uni t 3 and 4 intake structures to minimize fish and shellfish impingement mortality

. The traveling screens will incorporate protective measures including modified Ristroph

- type screens with collection buckets (or equivalent) designed to minimize turbulence t o aquatic organisms and a guard rail or barrier to prevent loss of aquatic organisms from the collection bucket

. The screen panels will use smooth woven mesh (or equivalent) to prevent abrasion of the aquatic organisms

. The screen wash will use a Comment [KB25]: This is irrelevant for sea turtles. What conservation measures is FPL proposing to reduce sea turtle take? Comment [FPL26]: FPL plans to increase the monitorin g of the wells from every 6 hours to every 4 hours. Florida has a Sea Turtle Stranding & Salvage Network (STSSN) that standardized the format for reporting captured or stranded turtles. FPL is developing a procedure that will utilize the same format as the STSSN. FPL will have a permitted & experienced sea turtle biologist that will be familiar with the procedure and on

- call at all times. Comment [KB27]: So, there is still the potential for sea turtle take during the three

- year construction period? Comment [FPL28]: Yes; however, since th ere will be no flow through the wells for most of the construction period, the likelihood is very small. The construction period will start in January 2013 and end with start of commercial operations in June 2016. FPL wil l be testing the cooling system st arting in the 4 th quarter 2015, so intermitten t flows will occur from then through the beginning of commercial operations. Comment [KB29]: During the construction period only? Or is this post

- construction? Comment [FPL30]: Please see re

- organized section Comment [KB31]: During or post

- construction? Comment [FPL32]: Please see re

- organized sectionAugust 2012 8 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc dual sp ray system (or equivalent) with a low pressure wash to remove organisms prior to a high pressure wash to remove trash

. The aquatic organism return system will return the organisms to the source water in a manner that minimizes predation or re

- impingement. The temperature rise across the PEEC condensers will be approximately the same as the current plant operations

. However, PEEC will decrease the thermal loading to the aquatic environment by approximately 50 percent, due to reduced cooling water flows

. T herefore, the size of the thermal discharge in the ICW will be significantly reduced

. The cooling water discharge canal lies within an area designated as essential habitat for the Florida manatee

. Manatees are known to use the area around PPE as a therma l refuge

. PEEC will continue to provide a thermal refuge for manatees pursuant to the facility’s Manatee Protection Plan that is incorporated by reference in the IWW Permit No

. FL0001538

. FPL has submitted a substantial revision application to modify th e current permit to authorize PEEC operations

. The revised permit is anticipated to be issued in 2013.

PEEC will use clean fuel sources such as natural gas as the primary fuel with ultra

- low sulfur distillate (ULSD) oil used as the backup fuel

. Natural g as will be transported to PEEC via an existing natural gas pipeline. New infrastructure will be built to accommodate ULSD storage, delivery and unloading from Port unloading facilities

. During normal operations, i I t is anticipated that an average of le ss than one ship per year will be sufficient to maintain the necessary levels of ULSD for reliable and continuous service

. This is a significant reduction from the 22 plus ships per year necessary under current operations

. e ven d D uring emergency situat ions such as periods of disrupted natural gas supply additional ships may be required. , a significant reduction from the 22 plus ships per year necessary under current operations

. The reduction in shipping traffic will further reduce the environmental imp acts of electrical generation at this Plant by decreasing the potential for spills, propeller strikes and other potentially harmful effects of shipping traffic on local and regional species

. The operation of PEEC will result in reduced air emissions

. Th e use of clean fuels (natural gas and ULSD), combustion controls and air pollution control equipment will minimize air emissions and ensure compliance with applicable emission limiting standards

. Using clean fuels will minimize emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter with an aerodynamic particle size of 10 μm or less (PM 10 ), and other fuel

- bound contaminants

. Nitrogen oxide s (NO x ) emissions will be reduced by approximately 3900 tons per year (an 85 percent reduction) , SO 2 emissions will be reduced by approximately 9000 tons per year (a 95 percent reduction), and particulate emissions (PM and PM 10 ) will be reduced by approximately 350 tons per year (a 50 percent reduction)

. Due to increased generation capacity and uti lization, greenhouse gas emissions at PEEC will increase despite a carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions rate that is approximately 50 percent Comment [KB33]: All in uplands? Comment [FPL34]: Yes

Comment [KB35]: EPA’s purview Comment [FPL36]: Comment acknowledgedAugust 2012 9 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc lower than the existing Units 1 through 4

. However, with power from PEEC replacing power generated from other less eff icient plants, total greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO 2 ) for the FPL generating system are expected to decrease by approximately 22 million tons over the life of the Project (FPL, 2012 ).

2.2 The Action Area For the purposes of this assessment, the “Actio n Area” (Figure 5) includes the upland area of PPE where dismantlement and construction will occur, the once

- through cooling water system (intake and discharge canals and structures) and the areas of the Port and ICW adjacent to the intake and discharge ca nal terminal

. Under current operating characteristics , that includes an area from just south of the discharge canal at approximately 26.07784 degrees north latitude and 80.11513 degrees west longitude north to a point in the ICW just south of the turning basin near the Coast Guard Station at approximately 26.08855 degrees north latitude and 80.11432 degrees west longitude (Envirosphere , 1987; Applied Biology Inc. , 1987)

. The Action Area includes this area of direct influence and also the adjacent aquatic habitats that may experience indirect impacts and is here defined as PPE and the adjacent waterways and shoreline habitats between the Port Everglades Turning Basin entrance channel midline south to a point approximately 370 meters south of the mouth of th e discharge canal ( Figure 5 )

. The Action Area boundaries are defined conservatively, as they include areas well outside the area of direct influence of PPE operations even under the current operating conditions, and the area of direct influence of the P EEC will be considerably smaller due to the reduced cooling water volume requirements and lower thermal loading to the aquatic environment

. The corner coordinates for the portions of the Port and the ICW included in the Action Area are:

Northwest Corner: 26.09352° North and 80.12384° West

Northeast Corner: 26.09360° North and 80.11240° West Southwest Corner: 26.07514° North and 80.11551° West Southeast Corner: 26.07518° North and 80.11352° West Terrestrial and aquatic habitats within the Action Area are briefly described below, following the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Cl assification System (FLUCFCS ) (FDOT, 1999)

. The majority of the upland land use in the Action Area is comprised of facilities related to electric power generation at PPE (FLUCFCS Code 831)

. The existing electric power facilities do not include areas of significant natural vegetative habitats

. Within the existing PPE property boundary there is an area of open land on the northern side of the cooling water discharge canal (FLUCFC S Code 190)

. This Comment [KB37]: I’m not sure I understand this. Nevertheless, this is all under EPA’s purview (Clean Air Act). Comment [FPL38]: Subject for discussion if necessary

Comment [KB39]: Please provide this figure in Word format. I only have it in pdf, and I need to be able to copy and paste it into my biological opinion. Comment [FPL40]: Please see jpeg of figure

Comment [KB41]: Please include a statement confirming that there are no mangrove impacts or dredging of shallow waters (less than 1 mete r in depth) proposed. Comment [FPL42]: There are no planned activities that will result in mangrove impacts or shallow water dredging.August 2012 10 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc area is generally a mowed and maintained lawn with a small number of cabbage palm ( Sabal palmetto )

. The ground cover is a mix of grasses and ruderal species. The cooling

- water intake (north side) and discharge (south side) canals are up land cut ditches (FLUCFCS Code 512)

. The banks of the canals are overgrown primarily with Brazilian pepper ( Schinus terebinthifolius ) and Australian pine ( Casuarina equisetifolia ) with scattered Mexican fireplant ( Poinsettia heterophylla ), painted leaf ( P oinsettia cyathophora ), Durban crowfoot grass ( Dactyloctenium aegyptium ), Virginia creeper ( Parthenocissus quinquefolia ) and prickly pear cactus ( Opuntia humifusa )

. Natural terrestrial vegetative communities are scarce within the urban environment surroun ding the PPE p roperty

. Areas of mangrove wetlands and areas dominated by melaleuca ( Melaleuca quinquenervia 

### ) and Australian pine occur in the Action Area, in particular on the tract south of the discharge canal and at John U

. Lloyd State Recreation Ar ea on the eastern shore of the ICW across from PPE. The only aquatic env ironments that occur within PEEC are the cooling

- water intake and discharge canals (FLUCFCS Code 512)

. Previous studies have found no seagrasses within the canals

. Aquatic enviro nments within the Action Area adjacent to the PEEC p roperty include the ICW and the Port slips and turning basin (FLUCFCS Code 512)

. The entire area of the ICW and turning basin contained within the Action Area have been dredged to depths greater than ten meters to accommodate deep draft shipping and there is thus little habitat suitable for submerged aquatic vegetation

. However, studies conducted for the U.S

. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in support of the Port Everglades E xpansion Project have doc umented Halophila johnsonii and other non

- listed seagrasses ( Halophila decipiens , Halodule wrightii and Syringodium filiforme ) within the Action Area (DC&A , 2009)

. Biological studies conducted in the area have reported a very depauperate benthic fauna, at tributed to the deep dredging and to impacts from the adjacent industrial uses (Applied Biology, 1987)

. As previously noted in Section 1.2 above, due to the proximity of PEEC to Port Everglades, operations and activities at the Port will have the potentia l to impact organisms and influence environmental conditions encountered at PEEC

. 2.3 Project Benefits

PEEC is strategically located to serve FPL’s customers in an area of concentrated demand

. Locating generation sources as close to the load as possible r educes the reliance upon the transmission system and also reduces overall costs of service . PEEC has multiple advantages including (1) reuse of an existing developed site with adequate land size and zoning, (2) access to existing fuel transportation infra structure (gas pipeline), (3) e xisting transmission facilities and (4) excellent access to water Comment [KB43]: See previous comment (please confirm no mangrove impacts are proposed). Comment [FPL44]: There are no planned activities that will result in mangrove im pacts or shallow water dredging.

Comment [KB45]: When was the most recent survey completed? If a survey has not been completed in the past three years, NMFS may request an updated seagrass survey. Let’s assume we do not have a recent seagrass survey and let’s assume th ere are seagrasses in these canals, are there any aspects of project construction or post

construction with the potential to affect seagrasses? Comment [FPL46]: The most recent benthic survey was conducted on 10

- 5

- 10 as part of an Army Corp permi

t. The survey covered port ions of the intake canal. O nly sparse areas of seagrass coverage with low density were identified. Subject for discussion Comment [KB47]: I would be careful here. Dial Cordy, DEP, and others have surveyed these areas and seagrasses are present in and around the port. Suggest removing this statement since you follow it with evidence of seagrass presence. Comment [FPL48]: Subject for discussion

Comment [KB49]: See previous comment. Because NMFS is consulting separately on the Port Everglades Expansion, we will not consider its effects in our cumulat ive effects analysis of the biological opinion for this project. Comment [FPL50]: Subject for discussionAugust 2012 11 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc supply and transportation

. Since the existing Units 1 through 4 are older and less efficient; they are used less often and the system relies on imported power via the transmission system

. The Project will add base load generation close to the load and thereby reduce the need for new transmission investments projected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars in the next decade

. FPL estimates that the proposed P roject will create 650 direct construction jobs at its peak and provide more than $20 million in new tax revenue to local governments and school districts

. The Project will also result in significant environmental benefits compared to the existing Units 1 through 4

. In addition, the use o f the existing site, facilities and committed resources such as water, should not result in additional land use impacts such as impact s on wetlands associated with locating new gas pipelines or transmission facilities

. T hus, the Project will provide benefits beyond the provision of electric service. The Project will provide needed reliable base load capacity near FPL’s load center to improve the power generation efficiency at PEEC by approximately 35 percent

. PEEC will i mprove several other existing conditions such as the discharge water quality , reduction of both the volume of cooling water flow and the therma l loading into the local waters , local air quality by reducing system

- wide greenhouse gas emissions by 22 mill ion to ns over the life of the Project and providing economic stimulus locally and nationally through direc t and indirect job creation, material procurement and increased tax basis

. The above benefits will be achieved with no need for additional linear fac ilities like transmission lines, natural gas transmission, fuel piping or water transmission

. In addition, the Project will result in more than $400 million in savings c ompared to the continued operation of the existing units and over $800 million in savi ngs o ver the construction of a green field site of the same capacity or any other options identified

. The Project will also provide economic and environmental benefits derived from greater fuel efficiency of the new unit, reduced emissions, lower ope rating and maintenance expenses and enhanced unit availability. Because of the long list of benefits derived from PEEC, especially the economic benefits to FPL customers, the Florida Public Service Commission and FPL have identified th e P roject to be the most pr udent strategy for meeting its customer’s future energy requirements

. The decision is also based upon FPL’s assumption that because of these benefits, permitting PEEC could be achieved in a timely and efficient manner

. Without certainty of receiving thes e permits , PEEC will not be pursued and the continued operation of PPE will be the next best alternative to meet FPL customers’ demands

. 

### 3.0 LISTED SPECIES AND C RITICAL HABITAT IN T HE ACTION AREA
A current listing of threatened and endangered species in the South Atlantic area under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service is found in Table 1. The loggerhead, green, Comment [KB51]: Please elaborate

– what water quality parameters will be improved? Comment [KB52]: Is this what is meant by water quality improvements? Comment [FPL53]: Yes to KB 52, which is responsive to KB 51 a lso. Subject for discussionAugust 2012 12 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc hawksbill, Kemp's Ridley and leatherback sea turtles, the smalltooth sawfish and Johnson's seagrass are discussed in detail bel ow and other species are discussed briefly in Section 3. 8

. 3.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle ( Caretta caretta )

3.1.1 General Information The loggerhead sea turtle has been federally listed as a threatened species since 1978

. Loggerheads are circumglobal in distribution in tropical and temperate waters

. The southeast U.S

. coast, and particularly Florida, is considered to be the most important rookery in the western he misphere for loggerheads (NMFS & USFWS , 2008)

. Recent studies have revealed three genetically distinct nest ing populations in the southeast U.S.: the northern nesting population (North Carolina to Cape Canaveral), the South Florida population (Ca pe Canaveral to Collier County) and the Florida Panhandle population (Franklin to Escambia Counties, Florida) (Bowen et al. , 1993)

. Trends in Florida nesting were assessed by Witherington et al

. (2009), who analyzed loggerhead nesting for thirty nesting beach sites in Florida included in the Florida Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) program . This assessment concluded that following a 24 percent increase in nesting between 1989 through 1998, loggerhead nesting declined 16 percent from 1999 through 2007

. An examination of INBS loggerhead nesting data through the 2011 nesting season shows an overall 3.6 percent increase in loggerhead nesting over the entire period from 1989 through 2011, a figure that does not dif fer significantly from zero ( Witherington, 2012 ). Loggerheads nest in the southeast U.S

. from April through September, with the peak nesting in June and July (N MFS and USFWS , 1991a)

. The nesting process is remar kably stereotyped and is described in Bustard et al

. (1975)

. Hatch lings emerge primarily at night and swim offshore in a “frenzy” until they arrive at offshore weed and debris lines (Carr , 1986) (Wyneken & Salmon , 1992)

. Post hatchling turtles from the Florida coast enter the currents of the North Atlantic Gyre, eventually returning to the western Atlantic coastal waters (Bowen et al. , 1993). When loggerheads reach a carapace length of approximately 40 t o 60 centimeters (cm), they leave the pelagic environment and move into various nearshore habitats (Carr , 1986)

. In the U.S. , developmental habitats for loggerheads are found from Texas to Nova Scotia (Turtle Expert Working Group , 1998)

. As they approach adult size of about 83 cm carapace length (Ehrhart et al. , 1996), loggerheads leave the developmental habitats

. Adult loggerhead foraging grounds for the South Florida nesting population are found in the Cari bbean basin, the Gulf of Mexico and along the eastern seaboard of the U.S

. (Meylan et al. , 1983)

. Abundances of adult loggerheads in Florida coastal waters are much lower in months outside of the nesting season (Magnuson et al. , 1990).August 2012 13 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 3.1.2 Plant Specific Information A review of research projects on in

- wa ter sea turtle populations in Florida (Eaton et al. , 2008) revealed no current or historical surveys on sea turtle populations in the inshore waters of Broward County that include the Action Area

. There have been two in

- water research projects on nearshor e and offshore reef habitats in oceanic waters adjacent to and connected to the inshore waters of the Action Area

. Makowski et al. (2005 ) conducted towed diver surveys in the immediate nearshore area along a 30 kilometer (km) strip roughly centered on the Port entrance channel to evaluate sea turtle abundance as a part of environmental monitoring for beach restoration projects

. These surveys sighted 370 green turtles (presumably mostly juveniles, although life stage was not reported) and no sea turtles o f any other species.
In the same area but somewhat farther offshore, conducted between 1986 and 1991, Wershoven and Wershoven (1992 ) conducted aerial surveys and scuba diving hand capture efforts

. Although the research was focused on green turtles, the a uthors did include 14 observations of loggerhead turtles over nearshore reef habitat

. The best data source on sea turtle presence available for the inshore waters of Broward County that include the Action Area is the database of sea turtle strandings maint ained by the STSSN. A review of that database for Broward County inshore waters for the ten

- year period from 2002 through 2012 conducted by Dr. Allen Foley of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission revealed loggerhead turtles to be the do minant species found stranded in Broward County inshore waters, with 26 loggerheads recorded out of a total of 43 strandings for the ten

- year period. Of the turtles for which carapace length data are available, most (12 out of 15) were subadults with a carapace length less than 85 cm

. Curved carapace lengths of stranded loggerheads ranged from 64 to 101 cm, with a mean of 76 cm

. The greatest number of strandings occurred in October through December (38 percent) and April through July (35 percent) , with lesser numbers occurring in July through September (15 percent) and January through March (11 percent).

FPL records for sea turtles encountered at PPE over the same ten

- year period from 2002 through 2012 indicate that 12 loggerhead turtles have been reco rded within the intake system.

3.2 Green Sea Turtle ( Chelonia mydas )

3.2.1 General Information The green turtle was listed under the ESA in 1978 and the Florida nesting population is currently listed as endangered

. Green turtles are found worldwide in tropical an d subtropical waters

. Major Comment [KB54]: These surveys were completed in nearshore hardbottom areas, which is likely the reason only green turtles were observed. Comment [FPL55]: Comment acknowledged

Comment [KB56]: Should this say 2011? The rest of this section summarizes STSSN data and plant da ta up to 2011. Comment [FPL57]: Yes, it should say 2011. The data from the strandings supplied by FWCC was from January 2002 through December 2011. Comment [KB58]: 60% Comment [FPL59]: The total number of strandings should be 42 strandings, not 43.

Comment [FPL60]: 2011. The data from the strandings supplied by FWCC was from January 2002 through December 2011. Comment [KB61]: Out of how many total during that same ten

- year period? 15 total? Comment [FPL62]: Out of a total of 21 turtles. However, only 15 were identified.August 2012 14 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc green turtle rookeries in the Western Hemisphere occur on South Atlantic islands and the Caribbean basin

. Most continental U.S

. nesting of the green turtle takes place on the Florida East Coast south of Cape Canaveral (NMFS & USFWS , 1991)

. Green turtles show a similar life history pattern as loggerheads, but they leave the pelagic phase and enter developmental habitats at a considerably smaller size, about 20 to 25 cm carapace length (Magnuson et al. , 1990)

. Typical developme ntal habitats are shallow, protected waters where seagrasses are prevalent (Carr et al. , 1978), but small green turtles are also commonly found in reef environments where attached algae are present (Ehrhart et al. , 1996; Coyne , 1994)

. It has been suggeste d that green turtles in foraging habitats may tend to specialize in either algae or seagrass forage, as individual turtles with intestinal microbial flora adapted to aid in seagrass digestion woul d digest algae less efficiently and vice versa (Bjorndal , 19 85). Green turtles nesting in Florida have a minimum size of 83 cm carapace length, but they appear to leave Florida developmental habitats by about 60 to 65 cm carapace length (Witherington & Ehrhart , 1989), perhaps migrating to the southeastern Caribbean

. The majority of green turtle nesting in Flor ida takes place in July, August and early September, and green turtle nesting is concentrated in southeast and east central Florida

. A review of the INBS nesting data for green turtles in Florida over the per iod from 1989 through 2011 shows a marked and steady increase in nesting

. Ther e has been an approximately ten

- fold increase in green turtle nesting on Florida Index beaches from 1989 through 2011, and the 2011 nesting total was highest on record ( Witherin gton, 2012 ).

3.2.2 Plant Specific Information A review of research projects on in

- water sea turtle populations in Florida (Eaton et al. , 2008) revealed no current or historical surveys on sea turtle populations in the inshore waters of Broward County that includ e the Action Area

. There have been two in

- water research projects on nearshore and offshore reef habitats in oceanic waters adjacent to and connected to the inshore waters of the Action Area

. Makowski et al. (2005 ) conducted towed diver surveys in the i mmediate nearshore area along a 30 km strip roughly centered on the Port entrance channel to evaluate sea turtle abundance as a part of environmental monitoring for beach restoration projects

. These surveys sighted 370 green turtles (presumably mostly juv eniles, although life stage was not reported ) and no sea turtles of any other species.

In the same area but somewhat farther offshore , between 1986 and 1991 Wershoven and Wershoven (1992) conducted aerial surveys and scuba diving hand capture efforts

. In this study, 187 green turtles were captured

. All individuals were neritic stage juveniles, with curved car apace lengthsAugust 2012 15 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc ranging from 27 to 67 cm, with a mean curved carapace length of 43 cm

. Seasonal abundance differences were noted in the study, with th e greatest number of capture s occurring in April, May, June and August and the lowest number of captures in September and December. A review of the STSSN database for Broward County inshore waters for the ten

- year period from 2002 through 2011 conducted by Dr. Allen Foley of the FWC revealed 16 green turtle strandings for the ten

- year period . All stranded green turtles were juveniles. Curved carapace lengths of stranded green turtles ranged from 29 to 46 cm, with a mean of 38 cm

. A majority of the stra ndings (11 out of 16) occurred in the months of October through March.

FPL records for sea turtles encountered at PPE over the same ten

- year period from 2002 through 2011indicate that three green turtles have been recorded within the intake system

. 3.3 Leath erback Sea Turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea )

3.3.1 General Information The leatherback sea turtle was federally listed as endangered in 1970

. Leatherbacks are found worldwide in pelagic waters from the tropics to near the Arctic and Antarctic Circles

. Nesting prim arily occurs on the Pacific coast of Mexico and the Caribbean coast of South America, with some continental U

. S

. nesting in Florida

. During the period from 1979 through 1992, over 90 percent of Florida leatherback nesting occurred in St. Lucie, Martin and Palm Beach counties (Meylan et al. , 1995)

. An analysis of Florida INBS data indicates a statistically significant increase in Florida leatherback nesting over the period from 1989 through 1998 (Witherington & Koppel , 2000)

. That increase has continued f

or the period from 1998 through 2011.

3.3.2 Plant Specific Information With the exception of nesting females, leatherback turtles occur almost exclusively in offshore waters

. None of the nearshore in

- water studies conducted in the waters of Broward County docum ented any leatherback turtles

. The STSSN stranding database contains no records of leatherback turtle strandings in inshore Broward County waters in the last ten years, and FPL records do not contain any encounters with leatherback turtles in the intake s ystem over the same period (2002 through 2011 )

. The presence of leatherback turtles in the Action Area is considered extremely unlikely. Comment [KB63]: Out of how many total strandings for the same ten

- year period? 43 total? Comment [FPL64]: Th e total number of strandings should be 42 strandings, not 43.

Comment [KB65]: Out of how many total during the same ten

- year period? 15 total? Comment [FPL66]: Out of a total of 21 turtles. However, only 15 were identified.August 2012 16 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 3.4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata )

3.4.1 General Information
The hawksbill turtle was listed as en dangered in 197 0 and critical habitat has been established at the islands of Mona and Monita in Puerto Rico (NMFS & USFWS , 1993)

. Hawksbills are the rarest of the five species of marine turtles found in Florida waters (Meylan & Redlow , 2006)

. Hawksbill turtles are know n to occur in appropriate habitats in Florida (generally in association with coral reef environments), although much of the information available on their distribution has been inferred from stranding and incidental capture data (Meylan & Redlow , 2006)

. E arly reports mention southeast Florida and the Florida Keys as having both the greatest abundance of hawksbills in the state an d appropriate hawksbill habitat (DeSola , 1935; Carr , 1940)

. It is assumed that nesting beaches in the Caribbean Basin are the re cruitment source for hawksbills in these developmental habitats

. Nesting in Florida by hawksbill turtles is extremely rare

. Major nesting beaches for hawksbill turtles in the Caribbean and western Atlantic include a large nesting aggregation in the Yucat an Peninsula and smaller mainland nesting beach aggregations in Panama and Nicaragua, as well as island beaches in Puerto Rico and the U

. S . Virgin Islands, Cuba and Barbados (Meylan & Redlow , 2006).

3.4.2 Plant Specific Information
There have been two in

- water research projects involving hawksbill turtles in the nearshore ocean waters of Broward County that are adjacent to and connected to the Action Area. The green turtle project conducted by Wershoven and Wershoven (1992 ) cited in Section 3.2.2 above document ed and captured three hawksbill turtles on the Broward County nearshore reef. The turtles ranged between 34 to 60 cm curved carapace lengths

. A similar but more extensive project is being conducted by Larry Wood with the Palm Beach Zoo on the offshore re ef tract in Palm Beach County

. This work has morphometric data from 138 individuals and shows a size class distribution with a mean straight carapace length (SCL) of 56 cm and a peak in the 51 to 60 cm SCL size class

. There are no observations of turtles with an SCL of less than 40 cm (Wood et al. , in press)

. The STSSN database for the inshore waters of Broward County that includes the Action Area for the period from 2002 through 2011 has no records of hawksbill strandings.

FPL records for sea turtles encountered at PPE over the same ten

- year period from 2002 through 2011 indicate that no hawksbill turtles have been recorded within the intake system

. Comment [KB67]: The #s don’t add up. 26 loggerhead strandings plus 16 green turtle strandings = 42 total strandings over ten years (2002

- 2011). On page 12, you state 43 total strandings over ten years. So, what happened to one of strandings? Is the species unknown? Comment [FPL68]: The total number should be 42 strandings, not 43.August 2012 17 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 3.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii )

3.5.1 General Information Kemp's Ridley turtles inhabit shelter ed coastal areas and frequent larger estuaries, bays, and lagoon s in the temperate, subtropical and tropical waters of the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (Mager , 1985)

. The foraging range of adult Kemp's Ridley turtles appears to be restri cted to the Gulf of Mexico

. However, juveniles and subadults occur throughout the warm coastal waters of the U.S

. Atlantic coast (Hopkins & Richardson , 1984; Pritchard & Marquez , 1973)

. Juveniles and subadults travel northward with vernal warming to feed in the productive coastal waters of Georgia through New England, but return southward with the onset of winter to escape the cold (Henwood & Ogren , 1987; Lutcavage & Musick , 1985; Ogren , 1989). Nesting of Kemp's Ridleys is mainly restricted to a stretch o f beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico (Pritchard & Marquez , 1973; Hopkins & Richardson , 1984)

. An estimated 40,000 females nested on a single day in 1947, but between 1978 and 1990 there were less than 1000 nests per

season
. More recently, nestin g levels at the key Mexican beaches have recovered significantly, with over 20,000 nests recorded at Rancho Nuevo in 2009 (NMFS, USFWS, & SEMARNAT , 2010)

. Occasional nesting has also historically occurred at Padre Island, Texas and Veracruz, Mexico (Mager , 1985; Turtle Expert Working Group , 2000)

. Kemp's Ridley nesting in Texas has also increased significantly in recent years (NMFS, USFWS, & SEMARNAT , 2010). Population estimates of immature Kemp's Ridleys are difficult to develop

. Increases have been not ed in the number of juvenile captures during the late 1980s and early 1990s in long

- term tagging studies in the northeast Gulf of Mexico (Ogren, unpublished data)

. If this increase is indicative of an overall increase in the juvenile population, more recr uitment into the adult population should occur in the future (NMFS & FWS , 1992). An analysis of the size of stranded Kemp's Ridleys indicated that many more large immature individuals were stranded during the 1990s relative to the 1980s (Turtle Expert Work ing Group , 2000)

. These results also suggest that juvenile mortality has decreased and that the population is increasing

. Despite these improvements, the data suggest that this population remains at critically low levels

. This species was listed as enda ngered in 1970 and is considered the most endangered of all sea turtles (NMFS & FWS , 1992; Burke et al. , 1994).August 2012 18 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 3.5.2 Plant Specific Information
A review of active and inactive in

- water sea turtle research projects in Florida (Eaton et al. , 2008) found no Kemp's Ridley turtles captured or sighted in any project closer to the Action Area than Florida Bay in Everglades National Park

. The STSSN database for the inshore waters of Broward County that includes the Action Area for the period from 2002 through 2011 has no records of Kemp's Ridley strandings. FPL records do not contain any encounters with Kemp's Ridley turtles in the cooling water intake system over the same ten

- year period. The presence of Kemp's Ridley turtles in the Action Area is considered possible but unlikely.

3.6 Smalltooth Sawfish ( Pristis pectinata )

3.6.1 General Information
In the U.S. , smalltooth sawfish are generally a shallow water fish of inshore bars, mangrove edges and seagrass beds, but are occasionally found in deeper coastal waters The smalltoo th sawfish was said to be commonly found in shallow water throughout the northern Gulf of Mexico, especially near river mouths and in large bays and was common in peninsular Florida (Walls, 1975)

. Historical records indicate that smalltooth sawfish have b een found in the lower reaches of the Mississippi and St

. Johns Rivers and the Indian River Lagoon system

. Individuals have also historically been reported to migrate northward along the Atlantic seaboard in the warmer months

. Estimating from the latitud inal limits within which they are year

- round residents and from the summer

- winter temperatures of the Carolinian waters that they visit during the warmer half of the year, the lower thermal limit to their normal range is probably about 16 to 18 o Celsius

. Over the past century the population has been reduced by fishing and habitat alteration and degradation, and currently smalltooth sawfish are primarily found in southern Florida in the Everglades and Florida Keys (NMFS , 2006).

The smalltooth sawfish has be en extirpated from much of its former range in Florida

. The U.S

. region that has always harbored the largest numbers of smalltooth sawfish lies in south and southwest Florida from Charlotte Harbor through the Dry Tortugas

. There has been a continuous and frequent record of occurrences of sawfish in the Everglades since the first report in 1834 and the vicinity now serves as the last U.S

. stronghold for the species

. Long

- term abundance data are not available, but there are recent (1989 through 1999) recre ational catch per unit effort (CPUE) data for the Everglades (NMFS , 2006)

. This species typically inhabits shallow waters, but may occur in deeper waters of the continental shelf, and shallow waters are important nursery habitat for this species (NMFS , 20 06)

. Its critical habitat is undefined at this time ; however, it will likely be considered during the federal Comment [KB69]: This statem ent is not correct. NMFS has designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish; however, critical habitat is not present in the project area. We designated two critical habitat units in southwest Florida. If you want more info, I can send you the link to the final rule, just let me know. Comment [FPL70]: Replace with: No critical habitat for the smalltooth sawfish has been designated in the Action Area or adjacent waters.August 2012 19 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc review process, especially given its former known presence within the Indian River Lagoon system

. It was federally listed as endangered in 200 3.

3.6.2 Plant Specific Information A summary of sawfish records (NMFS , 2000) contains one record of a sawfish (not positively identified as a smalltooth sawfish, listed only as Pectinata sp .) from Broward County waters in September of 1998

. A more recent publi cation (Simpendorfer & Wiley , 2006) contains a figure showing smalltooth sawfish sightings in the Broward area in 2006, but specific location information was not provided

. A search of the National Sawfish Encounter Database revealed a number of recent

enc ounters in Broward County (Figure 6) including two encounters in the Action Area in 2006 and 2008 (Norton, 2012). There have not been any recorded sawfish encounters in the PPE intake system.

3.7 Johnson’s Seagrass ( Halophila johnsonii )

3.7.1 General Information
Ha lophilia johnsonii (Johnson’s seagrass) was listed as a threatened species by NMFS on September 14, 1998 (Federal Register Volume 63, p

. 49035) and the final rule for critical habitat designation for H

. johnsonii was published April 5, 2000 (Federal Regis ter, Vol . 65, p
. 66)

. H

. johnsonii has one of the most limited geographic ranges of all seagrass species

. It is known to occur only from 21.5 km north of Sebastian Inlet (near Palm Bay in Brevard County) south to northern Biscayne Bay (near North Miami) on the east coast of Florida (Kenworthy , 1997; Virnstein & Hall , 2009)

. Johnson’s seagrass is thought to support fisheries as habitat and foraging grounds for fish and invertebrates

.
3.7.2 Plant Specific Information
A review of current information on Johnson ’s seagrass distribution in the Action Area revealed a number of studies c onducted from the 1990s to 2009 for USACE in support of the Port expansion project (DC&A , 2000, 2001, 2006, 2009)

. Since 1999, Johnson's seagrass has been documented in the Actio n Area and adjacent waters

. Johnson's seagrass in the area occurs in single and mixed beds with its congener, H

. decipiens

. Johnson's seagrass is generally found in shal low water, less than one meter , but does occur in water up to three m eters in the Ac tion Area

. Johnson's seagrass distribution as of 2009 is shown in Figure 7.August 2012 20 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 3.8 Other Listed Species Other listed species under the jurisdiction of NMFS listed in Table 1 are either not found in habitats included in the Action Area or do not have the pote ntial to be affected by the proposed action and so will not be discussed in detail.



### 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELI NE CONDITIONS

This section discusses human

- induced impacts other than the proposed action in the Action Area to the listed species discussed in Section 3 above

. Since the Action Area does not include any nesting habitat for the species in question, impacts to nesting beaches such as artificial lighting and beach restoration are not included in the discussion

. Information specific to the Action Area and the surrounding Broward County inshore waters from the STSSN was provided by Dr. Allen Foley of FWC and will be discussed for each species below.

4.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle ( Caretta caretta ) The loggerhead turtle recovery plan (NMFS & USFWS , 2008) lists the fo llowing threats to loggerhead turtles that may potentially occur in the Action Area:



###  Vessel strikes

 Marine debris entanglement

 Hook and line fisheries

 Oil pollution and chemical pollution

 Dredging

 Marina an d dock development Given its setting in the highly urbanized and heavily utilized inshore waterway of Broward County, vessel strikes can reasonably be expected to be a significant threat in the Action Area

. The recovery plan (NMFS & USFWS, 2008) notes that vessel strike injuries are particularly prevalen t in the Southeast Florida region from Palm Beach through Dade Counties , and 60 percent of all loggerhead strandings in this region show signs of vessel strike injury

. A review of STSSN records for inshore strandings in Broward County from 2002 through 20 11 show eight out of 23 loggerhead strandings (35 percent) had codes or comments indicating a vessel strike injury

. Entanglement in marine debris and hook and line fishing gear may also reasonably be expected to be significant in such a heavily used mari ne area
. A review of STSSN records for inshore strandings inAugust 2012 21 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc Broward County from 2002 through 2011 show three out of 23 loggerhead strandings (13 percent) had codes or comments indicating entanglement in debris or fishing gear

. The area including and

sur rounding the Action Area has a very high potential for impacts from oil and chemical pollution , as the Port is a major shipping hub , and has significant commerce in petroleum, with over 128 million barrels transshipped through the Port in 2005, including h eavy fuel oil, diesel, gasoline and jet fuel (Broward County , 2011 )

. A review of STSSN records for inshore strandings in Broward County from 2002 through 2011 show one out of 23 loggerhead strandings (four percent) had codes or comments indicating oil or tar impacts

. Dredging activities occur periodically in the Action Area to maintain suitable navigational depths

. Hopper dredges have historically been used for this activity, which do have the potential to cause sea turtle mortalities

. In the Environme ntal Assessment for the Port maintenance dredging in 2005 , USACE concluded that: "the project may adversely a ffect sea turtles below mean high water if a hopper dredge is used" (USACE , 2005)

. A search of the USACE Sea Turtle Data Warehouse (USACE, 2005b) revealed no takes of loggerhead turtles were recorded for the 2005 maintenance dredging. Dredging, along with marina and dock development, may also affect turtles less directly by degrading habitat quality

. The Action Area is curre ntly very intensively d eveloped and the potential for new dock and marina development in the Action Area appears to be very slight, given that the only remaining areas of natural shoreline and shallow water habitat are protected within the boundaries of the John U

. Lloyd State R ecreation Area

. The Action Area includes a portion of the Port facility. The Port Everglades Master Plan document (Broward County, 2012) outlines plans for expansion and continued development of the Port facilities in conjunction with the Federal chann el deepening and widening project currently under review

. 4.2 Green Sea Turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) The green turtle recovery plan (NMFS & USFWS , 1991) lists the following threats to green turtles that may potentially occur in the Action Area:



###  Vessel strikes

 Marin e debris entanglement

 Hook and line fisheries

 Oil and gas exploration, development and transportation

 Dredging

 Marina and dock development

 Seag rass degradation Comment [KB71]: Will not be included in the cumulative effects analysis of our biological opinion for this projec t because the effects of the Port expansion will undergo separate section 7 consultation with NMFS. Comment [FPL72]: Subject for discussionAugust 2012 22 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc Given its setting in the highly urbanized and heavily utilized inshore waterway of Broward Coun ty, vessel strikes can reasonably be expected to be a significant threat in the Action Area

. The recovery plan (NMFS & USFWS , 1991) states that from 1986 through 1988 an average of 7.4 percent of U.S

. waters strandings showed injuries consistent with vess el strikes, and that these type s of injury were more common in areas of intense vessel traffic, including South Florida

. A review of STSSN records for inshore strandings in Broward County from 2002 through 2011 show three out of 11 green turtle strandings (27 percent) had codes or comments indicating a vessel strike injury. Entanglement in marine debris and hook and line fishing gear may also reasonably be expected to be significant in such a heavily used marine area

. A review of STSSN records for inshor e strandings in Broward County from 2002 through 2011 show two out of 11 green turtle strandings (18 percent) had codes or comments indicating entanglement or other injuries from recreational fishing gear

. The area including and surrounding the Action Are a has a very high potential for impacts from oil and chemical pollution , as Port Everglades is a major shipping port and has significant commerce in petroleum, with over 128 million barrels transshipped through the Port in 2005, including heavy fuel oil, d iesel, gasoline and jet fuel (Broward County , 2012 )

. There are no records in the recent STSSN data for inshore Broward County waters indicating oil or tar impacts to green turtles

. Dredging activities occur periodically in the Action Area to maintain sui table navigational depths

. Hopper dredges have historically been used for this activity, which do have the potential to cause sea turtle mortalities

. In the Environmental Assessment for the Port maintenance dredging in 2005 , the U

. S

. Army Corps of Engine ers (USACE) concluded that: "the project may adversely a ffect sea turtles below mean high water if a hopper dredge is used" (USACE , 2005)

. A search of the USACE Sea Turtle Data Warehouse (USACE, 2005b) revealed no takes of green turtles were recorded for the 2005 maintenance dredging. Dredging, along with marina and dock development, may also affect turtles less directly by degrading habitat quality

. The Action Area is currently very intensively developed, and the potential for new dock and marina develo pment in the Action Area appears to be very slight, given that the only remaining areas of natural shoreline and shallow water habitat are protected within the boundaries of the John U

. Lloyd State Recreation Area

. Of particular concern for green turtles is the loss of shallow seagrass and other submerged aquatic vegetation resulting from dredging and dock and marina development

. The majority of the Action Area is currently dredged to a depth of at least ten meters, except for shoreline vegetation and sha llow water habitats within John U

. Lloyd State Recreation Area, and there is thus little potential for further degradation of green turtle foraging habitat in the Action Area

. The Action Area includes a portion of the Port facility

. The Port Everglade s Master Plan document (Broward C ounty, 2012) outlines plans for expansion and Comment [KB73]: I’m not sure I agree with this statement given that seagrass habitat is present in and around the Port, and the Port expansion will result in a significant loss of SAV habitat. Nonetheless, the potential effects of the Port expansion on green turtles will be analyzed in our biological opinion for the Port project. Comment [FPL74]: Subject for discussionAugust 2012 23 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc continued development of the Port facilities in conjunction with the Federal channel deepening and widening project currently under review.

4.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle ( Dermochelys c oriacea ) The leatherback turtle recovery plan (NMFS & USFWS , 1992) lists the following threats to leatherback turtles that may potentially occur in the Action Area:



###  Vessel strikes

 Marine debris entanglement and ingestion

 Oil and gas exploration, developmen t and transportation
Given its setting in the highly urbanized and heavily utilized inshore waterway of Broward County, vessel strikes can reasonably be expected to be a significant threat in the Action Area

. The recovery plan (NMFS & USFWS , 1992) notes that vessel strike injuries were noted in 17 percent of leatherback strandings in Florida

. Entanglement in marine debris and hook and line fishing gear may also reasonably be expected to be significant in such a heavily used marine area

. The area includi ng and surrounding the Action Area has a very high potential for impacts from oil and chemical pollution, as the Port is a major shipping hub and has significant commerce in petroleum, with over 128 million barrels transshipped through the Port in 2005, in cluding h eavy fuel oil, diesel, gasoline and jet fuel (Broward County , 2012 )

. It is very unlikely, however, that an almost exclusively pelagic species such as the leatherback would be found in the inshore waters of the Action Area, and records from the Fl orida STSSN show no strandings of leatherbacks at all in the inshore waters of Broward County from 2002 through 2011 (Foley, 2012).

4.4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) The hawksbill turtle recovery plan (NMFS a & USFWS , 1993) lists the following threats to hawksbill turtles that may potentially occur in the Action Area:



###  Vessel strikes

 Marine debris entanglement and ingestion

 Oil and gas exploration, development and transportation
G iven its setting in the highly urbanized and heavily utilized insh ore waterway of Broward County, vessel strikes can reasonably be expected to be a significant threat in the Action Area

. Entanglement in marine debris and hook and line fishing gear may also reasonably be expected to be significant in such a heavily used marine area

. The area including and surrounding the Action Area has a very highAugust 2012 24 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc potential for impacts from oil and chemical pollution, as the Port is a major shipping hub and has significant commerce in petroleum, with over 128 million barrels transshipp ed through the Port in 2005, including h eavy fuel oil, diesel, gasoline and jet fuel (Broward County , 2012 )

. There are no records of hawksbill turtle strandings in the STSSN database for inshore Broward County waters that include the Action Area for the p eriod from 2002 through 2011.

4.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ) The most recent revision of the recovery plan for the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (NMFS, USFWS & SEMARNAT , 2010) lists the following threats that may potentially occur in the Action Area:



###  Vessel strikes

 Marine debris entanglement and ingestion

 Hook and line fisheries

 Oil, fu el, tar and chemical pollution

 Dredging Given its setting in the highly urbanized and heavily utilized inshore waterway of Broward County, vessel strikes can reas onably be expected to be a significant threat in the Action Area

. The recovery plan (NMFS, USFWS, & SEMARNAT , 2010) notes that vessel strike injuries were found in approximately 13 percent of Kemp's Ridley strandings from 1997 through 2001

. Entanglement in marine debris and hook and line fishing gear may also reasonably be expected to be significant in such a heavily used marine area

. From 1980 through 2006, there were 354 Kemp’s Ridleys stranded along the U.S

. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coast with evi dence of interactions with recreational or commercial hook and line fisheries, based on the internal and/or external presence of hook and line gear (NMFS STSSN , unpublished data )

. The area including and surrounding the Action Area has a very high potentia l for impacts from oil and chemical pollution, as the Port is a major shipping hub and has significant commerce in petroleum, with over 128 million barrels transshipped through the Port in 2005, including h eavy fuel oil, diesel, gasoline and jet fuel (Brow ard County , 2012 )

. Dredging activities occur periodically in the Action Area to maintain suitable navigational depths

. Hopper dredges have historically been used for this activity, which do have the potential to cause sea turtle mortalities

. In the Envi ronmental Assessment for the Port m aintenance dredging in 2005, USACE concluded that: "the project may adversely affect sea turtles below mean high water if a hopper dredge is used" (USACE, 2005)

. A search of the USACE Sea Turtle Data Warehouse (USACE , 20 05b) revealed no takes of Kemp's Ridley turtles were recorded for the 2005 maintenance dredging

. Dredging, along with marina and dock development, may also affect turtles less directly by degrading habitat quality

. The Action Area is curre ntly very inten sively developed and the potentialAugust 2012 25 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc for new dock and marina development in the Action Area appears to be very slight, given that the only remaining areas of natural shoreline and shallow water habitat are protected within the boundaries of the John U

. Lloyd State Recreation Area

. There are no records of Kemp's Ridley turtle strandings in the STSSN database for inshore Broward County waters that include the Action Area for the period from 2002 through 2011.

4.6 Smalltooth Sawfish ( Pristis pectinata )

The smalltoo th sawfish draft recovery plan (NMFS , 2006) lists the following threats to the smalltooth sawfish that may potentially occur in the Action Area:



###  Urban development

 Commercial activities

 Channel dredging

 Boating activities Many of these threats are particula rly widespread in the highly urbanized marine environment of southeast Florida

. The Action Area is curre ntly very intensively developed and the potential for new dock and marina development in the Action Area appears to be very slight, given that the only remaining areas of natural shoreline and shallow water habitat are protected within the boundaries of the John U

. Lloyd State Recreation Area

. The Action Area includes a portion of the Port facility

. The Port Everglade s Master Plan document (Broward Cou nty , 2012) outlines plans for expansion and continued development of the Port facilities in conjunction with the Federal channel deepening and widening project currently under review.

4.7 Johnson’s Seagrass ( Halophila johnsonii ) The Johnson’s seagrass recovery plan (NMFS , 2002) lists the following threats to Johnson’s seagrass that may potentially occur in the Action Area:



###  Dredging and filling

 Construction and shading f rom in and overwater structures

 P rop scarring and anchor mooring

 Trampling

 Altered water qual ity (such as s tormwater runoff and turbidity)

 Storms

 Siltation Comment [KB75]: This also includes freshwater pulses from the discharge canals. Comment [FPL76]: Comment acknowledgedAugust 2012 26 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc Dredging and filling occur regularly to maintain suitable navigational depths in the Action Area

. Due to the highly urbanized character, the existence of docks and Port structures in the Act ion Area, construction and shading from in and overwater structures may occur

. Prop scarring and anchor mooring may also occur in the Action Area

. The area waterways are heavily used by commercial and recreational vessels

. Trampling is less likely, sinc e the waterways are used primarily for navigation

. Water quality in the area varies due to tidal influence, stormwater run

- off from th e surrounding urban environment and fuel from high boat usage

. Storms affect the area on a seasonal basis, in cluding hur ricanes, nor’easters and seasonal thunderstorms that occur during the summer

. Siltation may occur associated with construction projects and large pulses of freshwater due to rain events

. Despite all of these potential effects , Johnson’s seagrass expanded its cover from 1999 through 2009 (DC&A , 2009).



### 5.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPO SED ACTION
This section discusses the effects of the proposed action on the listed species discussed in Section 3 above

. No indirect, interrelated, or interdependent effects were ident ified for the proposed action; thus the discussion is limited to direct effects

. 5.1 Overview of the Proposed Action The proposed action involves the modernization and continued operation of a facility that has been in operation at PPE since the early 1960 s
. Therefore, an examination of the recent history of the effects of the operation of the facility provides the best predictor of potential impacts from the proposed action, taking into account the positive influence the proposed action will have on the potential for impacts to listed species

. Available information on the history of sea turtle encounters at PPE from 1990 to 2012 was provided by FPL. Additional information on those encounters was obtained from a review of STSSN, rehabilitation facility and necropsy records. This information is summarized in Table 2 and will be discussed for each species below

. In evaluating both the historical effects of the operation of PPE and the potential effects of the operation of PEEC, the beneficial role that encounters at PPE have had in recovering sick and injured turtles and transferring them to rehabilitation facilities should be considered. An examination of the data in Table 2 reveals encounters with turtles that were recovered from PPE with vessel stri ke, entanglement, or other infirmities sustained outside the intake canal system that were successfully rehabilitated and released. Had these turtles not been encountered in the intake system, it is very likely they would have continued to decline in cond ition in the wild and eventually succumb. Comment [KB77]: In the action area? This is not surprising given the life history strategy of Halophila johnsonii. It is a spatially and temporally dynamic species. Vernstein coined the term “pulsating patches” to describe its life history strategy. Comment [FPL78]: Comment acknowledged

Comment [KB79]: Is the “positive influence” specified somewhere else in the BA? If so, please provide the page # or #s. Comment [FPL80]: FPL first references this on page 5. It is also described in the paragraph below.August 2012 27 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc PPE has operated in the Port area since the early 1960s

. At this and other facilities, FPL has a demonstrated history of environmental stewardship that has supported the rehabilitation of injured sea turtles

. S ea turtles in various conditions of fitness have been observed in the PPE intake canal over the years

. The intake canal connects to the open Port waters and supports the PPE cooling system

. When PPE is operating, there is a unidirectional flow from the P ort area (where multiple hazards exist including Port shipping traffic) into the intake canal

. During the years where FPL has a recorded histories (1990 to 2012), there were 29 documented turtles recovered from the intake canal. Twelve of those were foun d dead prior to arrival in the intake system , with most being severely decomposed. Eight of the turtles recovered were found with pre

- existing injuries requiring rehabilitation. These injured turtles benefited from PPE’s operation because they were able to escape the Port area. They were recovered and received the veterinary attention they needed to improve their chances for survival. Nine turtles were captured and released back to the environment on the same day

. The modernized PEEC will use the sa me intake canal as PPE

. Because PEEC is more efficient than PPE, it will use less water and thus there will be a reduction in flow at the point where the intake canal water meets the open Port. This reduced flow is expected to result in fewer turtles entering the intake canal than occurs at PPE (already a small number on average of 1.26 turtles per year, ranging from zero to four turtles per year )

. Historical data indicates that 75 percent of the turtles recovered from the intake canal will be dead o r have pre

- existing injuries. The beneficial properties of the intake canal described above will be maintained at PEEC. FPL will continue to monitor the intake canal for injured turtles

. Any injured turtles that are encountered will be recovered and transported to a rehabilitation facility

. FPL believes the reduced flow and the benefit to injured animals that the intake canal provides will further mitigate the already small number of encounters with these animals.

5.1.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle ( Caretta care tta ) Loggerhead turtles were the species most often encountered at PPE

. There were 19 encounters with loggerhead turtles in the intake system from 1990 through 2012

. Ten loggerheads w ere recovered or observed alive and nine loggerheads were recovered d ead

. Of the ten live loggerheads, four were transported to a rehabilitation facility, five had no apparent injury and appeared healthy and active and so were released the same day and one was observed to swim out of the intake well area on its

own
. Bas ed on a review of the available information, it does not appear that any of the injuries or mortalities was likely to have been causal to the operation of PPE. Comment [KB81]: See question on page 5: Does FPL have data on the size, species, and condition for these 9 turtles? Comment [FPL82]: Of the 9 turtles that were released back to the environment, all had no significant injuries or abnormalities. No measurements were taken. Five were identified as loggerhea ds, one was a hawksbill and three were unidentified. Comment [KB83]: See questions on page 5: Where were they released? Back to th.e ICW? Did FWC release them? Comment [FPL84]: Since 2008, when FPL has released the turtles, they have been released in the discharge canal at the first bend leading to the ICW. Comment [KB85]: Is it a 50 percent reduction in flow? Comment [FPL86]: Yes. Comment [KB87]: This is where the culverts are located. Comment [FPL88]: Yes. Comment [KB89]: How often? Will the same monitoring and reporting procedures be in place, as described on page 5? Comment [FPL90]: FPL plans to increase the monitoring of the wells from every 6 hours to every 4 hours. Florida has a Sea Turtle Stranding & Salvage Network (STSSN) that standardized the format for reporting captured or stranded turtles. FPL is developing a procedure that will utilize the same format as the STSSN. FPL will have a permitted & experienced sea turtle biologist that will be familiar with the procedure and on

- call at all times. Comment [KB91]: Will the turtles only be recovered if they are apparently dead or injured? What about apparently healthy turtles? Will they be recovered as a precaution? We will likely require that all turtles found in the intake canal and wells be recovered since we do not want them spending too much time in the intake system since they may starve or become dehydrated. Comment [FPL92]: Eighty percent of the intake canal is not accessible by land. Monitoring the inaccessible areas of the canal would provide little benefit since there are no structures, equipment or activities in this area of the canal that could jeopardize turtles. Monitoring the entir e intake canal would also pose an increase in risk toemployee safety. Additionally, during non

- daylight hours only the intake structure would be visible with the restricted plant lighting. As discussed in Comment [FPL30] FPL will increase the monitoring t o every 4 hours (6 times in a 24 hour period) as a conservation

... Comment [KB93]: Out of 29 Comment [FPL94]: Comment acknowledg ed Comment [KB95]: To the ICW? Who released them? Comment [FPL96]: Since 2008, when FPL has released the turtles, they have been released in the discharge canal at the first bend leading to the ICW.August 2012 28 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 5.1.2 Green Sea Turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) There were four e ncounters with green turtles in the intak e system of PPE from 1990 through 2012

. Three green turtles were recovered or observed alive and one was recovered dead. All three of the live green turtles were transported to a rehabilitation facility. Based on a review of the available information, i t does not appear that any of the injuries or mortalities was likely to have been causal to the operation of PPE

.
5.1.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ) There have not been any encounters with leatherback turtles recorded at the PPE.

5.1.4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) There were two encounters with hawksbill turtles in the intake system of PPE from 1990 through 2012. Both turtles were recovered alive. One hawksbill was transported to a rehabilitation facility and one was apparently uni njured and released the same day

. Based on a review of available information, it does not appear the injuries of the hawksbill transported to a rehabilitation facility were likely to have been causal to PPE operation.

5.1.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidoche lys kempii ) There have not been any encounters with Kemp's Ridley turtles recorded at PPE

.
5.1.6 Unidentified Sea Turtle Species There have been seven encounters with sea turtles recorded at PPE where the species could not be determined or were not recorded

. Fi ve encounters involved live turtles that were either captured and released the same day (three individuals) or that swam out of the intake well area on their own (two individuals)

. Two individuals that were not identified to species were recovered dead fr om the intake canal system

. Based on a review of the available information, it does not appear that any of the injuries or mortalities were likely to have been causal to the operation of PPE.

5.1.7 Smalltooth Sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ) There have not been any encounters with smalltooth sawfish recorded at PPE

. The proposed action will not result in any dredging, shoreline armoring, or clearing of aquatic vegetation. A low level threat to smalltooth sawfish identified in the draft recovery plan (NMFS, 2006) is warm water discharge from power stations , which is believed to interfere with natural movement patterns, as evidenced by the large number of smalltooth sawfish sightings near power station discharges

. The Comment [KB97]: Out of 29. Comment [FPL98]: Comment acknowledged

Comment [KB99]: To the ICW? Who released it? Comment [FPL100]: Since 2008, when FP L has released the turtles, they have been released in the discharge canal at the first bend leading to the ICW.August 2012 29 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc proposed action will reduce the volume of cooling water discharged and the extent of the thermal discharge as compared to the current characteristics

.
5.1.8 Johnson’s Seagrass ( Halophila johnsonii ) The proposed action will not result in any perturbations of the bottom or deleteriously affect water quality

. The proposed action will reduce the volume of cooling water discharged and the extent of the thermal discharge as compared to the current characteristics. No adverse impacts to Johnson’s seagrass are anticipated

.

5.2 Changes in Potential Effects Under the Pr oposed Action Under the proposed action, portions of the physical structures of the PPE cooling water intake and discharge systems will be refurbished and reused

. These modernized structures and the reduced cooling water volume requirements will result in lower water flow velocities and a reduction in the extent of the thermal discharge

. In combination, the above factors may reasonably be expected to significantly reduce the potential for impacts to listed species.

5.2.1 Changes During the Construction Phase of PEEC

While the Project is under construction for a period of approximately three years, ther e will be no cooling water used and thermal discharges will be limited to the operation of the Manatee Temporary Heating System described in Section 2.1

. During t his phase, there will be no potential impacts to listed species.

5.2.2 Changes During Operation of PEEC Once PEEC is constructed and operational, potential impacts to listed species will be significantly reduced in comparison to the current operation of PPE.

T he intake structu re will maintain the four 12 f t diameter intake pipes drawing water from Slip No

. 3 in the Port. However, due to increased efficiencies in power generation, the volume of cooling water drawn through the intake pipes will be considerably reduced, from approximately 1300 MGD to approximately 635 MGD. This reduction in flow volume will be accompanied by a 51 percent reduction in intake velocities at the point of intake in Slip No

. 3

. This change is expected to have a significant effect in reducing the number of encounters of sea turtles in the intake system , the residence time of healthy turtles in the intake system and the potential for injury or mortality at the intake wells. Comment [KB101]: We will likely need more than a one sentence analysis here. I was not aware that thermal discharges from power plants may be a threat for s awfish. I will need to discuss this with Shelley Norton. Comment [FPL102]: The sawfish recovery plan bases the potential impact on indirect evidence based on effects on bull sharks and on the number of sawfish sightings near power plant discharges (page 32 of document). The evidence for the threat is indirect and circumstantial, the severity is low, and under the proposed action the potential for effects will be substantially reduced due to reduced thermal discharges.

Comment [KB103]: How will a reduction in the flow velocities reduce t he residence time of healthy turtles in the intake system? Comment [FPL104]: With the reduced flow at the culverts, it is suspected that less turtles will enter the intake canal. If turtles continue to swim through the culverts, the reduced flow will make it easier for th e turtles to exit back through the culverts and out of the intake canal. Comment [KB105]: What is meant by this statement? Is FPL’s position that these turtles are already dead or injured when they enter the intake system? Comment [FPL106]: From the data that has been collected on the dead and injured turtles at the intake wells, FPL believes that the turtles entered the intake canal in that condition. Subject for discussionAugust 2012 30 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc Under PPE operating characteristics, intake velocities are not sufficient to cause entrainment of a strong swimming animal such as a sea turtle

- the turtles must actively swim into and through the intake pipes, although the current flow in the pipes makes it more likely that a turtle entering the intake struct ure will continue through the pipes and enter the intake canal

. With the reduced flows characteristic of the proposed action, it is expected that fewer turtles wil l enter the intake canal itself and potential for entrainment of injured or dead sea turtles on the vertical coarse bar racks is expected to be reduced

. In addition, the reduced flow will facilitate the egress of healthy turtles

. Lastly and perhaps most significantly, a reduction in current velocity within the intake canal will make it easie r for a sick or injured turtle with compromised swimming ability to avoid the area of the intake wells , where there is a small potential for drowning on the intake grate and/or mechanical injury from the intake rakes that keep the intake grate clear of d ebris

. It should be noted, however, that based on a review of the available information, it does not appear that any of the historical injuries or mortalities were likely to have been causal to the operation of PPE. The extent of the thermal discharge wil l be significantly reduced when PEEC is in operation compared to the current operation of PPE. The temperature rise of the cooling water at discharge will remain approximately the same at PEEC as compared to PPE, but the significant reduction in cooling

w ater volume requirements will reduce the extent of the thermal discharge in the ICW adjacent to the discharge canal by approximately 50 percent. This reduction will reduce any potential effects to the smalltooth sawfish and Johnson's seagrass

. In combin ation, the above factors may reasonably be expected to significantly reduce the potential for impacts to listed species, although the magnitude of the reduction is difficult to predict and will not necessarily have a linear relationship to the reduction in flow volume, velocities, or thermal discharges

.
5.3 Minimization of Potential Impacts and Conservation Efforts under the Proposed Action

This subsection describes how impacts to listed species are minimized by the operation of PEEC and also outlines propose d conservation efforts to be undertaken by FPL in the operation of PEEC.

5.3.1 Minimization The record demonstrates that the intake system at PPE has a history of collecting sea turtles that are predominantly weak, lethargic, or injured due to injuries or infirm ities sustained outside of Plant operations. As discussed in Sections 1.3 and 5.0 above, when collected by trained staff and treated at Comment [KB107]: What is the basis for this statement? Can this be supported? Comment [FPL108]: Little published information is available on s wimming speeds of juvenile, subadult, and adult turtles in either laboratory settings or in the wild. Data from satellite tagged adult green turtles in the wild and from adult Kemp's ridley turtles in a flow tank demonstrated sustained swimming speeds of 3 to 3.3 feet per second (Wyneken 1997). There are however, a number of anecdotal observations of burst swimming speed in leatherback, green, and loggerhead turtles in the range of 20

- 32 feet per second over short distances. It thus seems likely that any of the species encountered in the PEEC intake system would have the capability to exit the intake, given the velocities involved and the relatively short 244 foot culvert connecting the intake canal to the Port Slip # 3. Wyneken, J. 1977. Pages 165

- 199 In: P .L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Volume 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Comment [KB109]: How many times has FPL observed presumably healthy turtles swimming out of the intake canal on their own? Comment [FPL110]: FPL has never witnessed a sea turtle swimming out of the culvert structure since that area is not monitored by plant personnel or accessible from plant property. However, there have been documented sightings of turtles swimming in and out of the intake well that have not been seen aga in, either. Additionally, based on the flow velocity at the culverts, the length of the culvert piping (244’) and the turtle’s swimming speed, it can be presumed that healthy turtles can leave the intake canal at will. Comment [KB111]: What is the post

construction veloc ity at the intersection of the intake canal and the intake well? How does that compare to the baseline condition at this intersection? Comment [FPL112]: Units 3 & 4: Traveling screens: 2.9 ft/sec Canal: 1.0 ft/sec Culverts: 2.17 ft/sec Baseline conditions were provided in Section 1.2 Comment [KB113]: Based on Dial Cordy’s seagrass surveys within the port, please provide a figure that shows where Johnson’s seagrass has been observed in relation to the warm water discharge point at the intersection of the discharge canal and the ICW. Comment [FPL114]: Pleas e see figureAugust 2012 31 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc a rehabilitation center, the impacts to the animals have been minimized because they are given care they would otherwis e not receive in the wild

. The procedures currently in place at PPE have resulted in appropriate and effective responses to sea turtle encounters in the intake system and these procedures would be maintained in the operation of PEEC

. As mentioned in Se ction 2.1, PEEC will use natural gas as the primary fuel with ULSD oil used as the backup fuel

. Natural gas will be transported to PEEC via an existing natural gas pipeline

. New infrastructure will be built to accommodate ULSD storage, delivery and unloa ding from Port unloading facilities

. It is anticipated that less than one ship on average per year will be sufficient to maintain the necessary levels of ULSD for reliable and continuous service even during periods of disrupted natural gas supply, a signi ficant reduction from the 22 plus ships per year necessary under current operations

. The reduction in shipping traffic will further reduce the environmental impacts of electrical generation at PEEC by decreasing the potential for spills, propeller strikes and other potentially harmful effects of shipping traffic on listed species potentially occurring in the Action Area. PEEC will reuse portions of the existing cooling water intake system, specifically the PPE Units 3 and 4 cooling water intake structures after refurbishment and the addition of an Aquatic Organism Return System

. Therefore future operations of PEEC will involve half the number of intake bays and screens, with a resulting 50 percent reduction in operations and maintenance activities that hav e the potential for impact to sea turtles. This will also create an area near the intake wells that is relatively calm , providing greater opportunity for sick or injured turtles that enter the intake canal to avoid the intake wells

. In addition, the ap proximately 50 percent reduction in velocities at the point of intake and within the intake canal, combined with an approximately 50 percent reduction in cooling water flows, will minimize the potential impact to sea turtles. As mentioned previously, the e xtent of the thermal discharge will be significantly reduced when PEEC is in operation compared to PPE. The temperature elevation of the cooling water at discharge will remain about the same at the PEEC as compared to PPE , but the significant reduction in the extent of the thermal discharge and decrease in cooling water withdrawals will reduce the extent of the thermal discharge in the ICW adjacent to the discharge canal. This reduction will minimize any potential effects to the smalltooth sawfish and Joh nson's seagrass

. Comment [KB115]: See comment on page 5: We may require simultaneous monitoring of intake canal and wells every 4 instead of every 6 hours. Comment [FPL116]: Comment acknowledged

Comment [KB117]: See previous questions: What is the post

- construction velocity at the intersection of the inta ke canal and the intake well? How does that compare to the baseline condition at this intersection? Comment [FPL118]: See response FPL112

Comment [KB119]: See previous comment requesting a figure (comment on page 29). Comment [FPL120]: Please see figureAugust 2012 32 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 5.3.2 Conservation Efforts
PEEC will be more efficient than PPE, so it will use less water. Thus, there will be a reduction in flow at the point of withdrawal at Port Slip No

. 3

. This reduced flow is expected to result in fewer turtles ente ring the intake canal than occurs at PPE (already a small number on average of 1.26 turtles per year, ranging from zero to four per year)

. In an attempt to provide further protection to the sea turtles in the area, FPL would like to propose additional con servation measures

. Although the current procedures have been successful at minimizing impacts, a more comprehensive procedure would have the potential to provide better and more complete information on turtles that enter the intake canal system and furt her reduce the potential for injury or mortality

. The new procedure would include activities performed at the intake well during staff’s daily activities, contractor/consultant’s capture and release protocol and the data to be collected for each incid ent. The procedure would be submitted to NMFS for review and approval prior to the operation of PEEC. PEEC would continue to perform regular surveillance of the intake well area

. Current procedures require monitoring of the w ells four times in a 24

- h our period

. Personnel that may conduct the monitoring would be trained to observe and record data on each turtle

. If a turtle is observed that appears to be weak, lethargic, or injured, authorized personnel would be mobilized to the PEEC

. They would c apture and evaluate the turtle and then release or transport it to rehabilitation, as appropriate

. The data collected on captured turtles would be consistent with the STSSN’s Stranding Report

. Annual reports with a summary of sea turtle records at PEEC w ould be submitted to NMFS

. This additional information will be used to evaluate the oper ations of PEEC, identify trends and inform future decision

- making

. The conservation measures proposed in the new procedures would allow for a quicker response to each incident and increased data collection

. 

### 6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

This section addresses non

- federal actions other than the proposed P roject reasonably certain to occur that have the potential to affect listed species in the Action Area

. There is one non

- federal project expected to occur in the waters south of the Action Area, The Dania Cut

- off Canal Deepening Project and one federal project t hat will involve the northern segment of the Action Area, the Port Everglades Expansion Project.

The Dania Cut

- o ff Canal is permitted to b e dredged along 4,763 linear ft , beginning at the southwestern end of the Port , extending west to U

. S

. Highway 1

. This portion of the canal will be Comment [KB121]: NMFS may require simultaneous monitoring of the in take canal and wells every 4 instead of every 6 hours. Comment [FPL122]: Comment acknowledged Comment [KB123]: We need to make sure we capture FWC’s recommendations when developing these protocols and data requirements. Comment [FPL124]: Subject for discussion Comment [KB125]: We will need to review this procedure during section 7 consultation and prior to drafting our biological opinion. The new procedure, once approved by NMFS, would become part of the proposed action. Comment [FPL126]: FPL plans to increase the monitoring of the wells from every 6 hours to every 4 hours. Florida has a Sea Turtle Stranding & Salvage Network (STSSN) that standardized the format for reporting captured or stranded turtles. FPL is developing a procedure that will utilize the same format as the STSSN. FPL will have a permitted & experienced sea turtle biolog ist that will be familiar with the procedure and on

- call at all times. Comment [KB127]: Does FPL need a handling permit from FWC? What is the status in terms of acquiring a handling permit? Ideally, NMFS would like to incorporate the terms and conditions of FWC’s permit into our biological opinion. Comment [FPL128]: FPL does not have a handling permit; however, FPL has a contract with a licensed sea turtle handler and they hold a handling permit. Subject for discussion. Comment [KB129]: Does not need to be included here. We will be doing a separate sec tion 7 consultation for Port Everglades expansion. Comment [FPL130]: Discuss. Does this need to be removed? Comment [KB131]: Dredging would require a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers; thus, this would likely be a federal action that would require E SA Section 7 consultation with NMFS. Comment [FPL132]: Discuss. Does this need to be removed?August 2012 33 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc dredged to

- 17 feet mean low water (project depth of

- 15 ft mean low water and two ft of overdredging) in order to create a uniform depth throughout this portion of the canal

. The project will be managed by the Florida Inland Navigation District. The Port Everglades Federal Channel Project will deepen and widen the outer entrance channel, deepen the inner entrance channel, deepen the main turning basin, widen the rectangular shoal region to the southeast of the main turning basin by about 300 ft and deepen to 50 ft; widen the Southport Access Channel (SAC) in the proximity of berth s 23 to 26 by about 250 ft and relocate the U.S

. Coast Guard facility to the east; shift the existing 400

- ft wide SAC about 65 ft to the east from approximately berth 26 to the south end of berth 29 to provide a transition back to the existing f ederal cha nnel limits; deepen the SAC from about berth 23 to the south end of berth 32 to 50 ft; deepen the Turning Notch (TN) (following local

- sponsor
- dredging of same area to 42 f t) to 50 ft with an additional 100

- ft north

- south widening parallel to the SAC on the eastern edge of the SAC over a length of about 1,845 ft; and widen the western edge of the SAC for access to the TN from the existing f ederal channel edge near the south end of bert h 29 to a width of about 130 f t at the north edge of the TN

. The entire Action Area is currently developed and built out, other than the shoreline and uplands in the John U

. Lloyd State Recreation Area, which is protected under the Florida State Park System

. The activities anticipated in the vicinity of the Action Area are n ot expected to affect listed species in the Action Area. N o cumulative effects upon listed species under the ESA are anticipated.


### 7.0 CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the proposed action will have no e ffect on the following listed species and/or their critical habitats:

 blue whale ( Balaenoptera musculus )
 finback whale ( Balaenoptera physalus )
 humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae )
 North Atlantic right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis )
 sei whale ( Balaenoptera borealis )
 sperm whale ( Physeter macrocep halus )
 Kemp's Ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii )
 leatherback sea turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea )
 shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum )
 smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata )
 elkhorn coral ( Acropora palmata ) Comment [KB133]: Please provide rationale for “no effect” determination for these species. Comment [FPL134]: For Kemp’s ridley and leatherback turtles, there have been no recent documented occurrences of either s pecies in Broward County inshore waters (stranding data), and no encounters of either species at the plant site. Their presence in the Action Area should be considered extremely unlikely, and hence no effect should be anticipated. Comment [KB135]: Please provide rationale for “no effect” determination for this species. Comment [FPL136]: There have been few sightings and no impacts documented to smalltooth sawfish in the Action Area. The proposed action will not result in any dredging, shoreline armoring, or clearing of aquatic vegetation i n the Action Area. The proposed action will substantially reduce the potential for thermal impacts to smalltooth sawfish in the Action Area. Therefore, no effects should be anticipated.August 2012 34 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc  staghorn coral ( A cropora cervicornis )
 Johnson’s seagrass ( Halophila johnsonii ) Although the velocity and flow rate at the point of withdrawal as well as the number of intake bays will be reduced by approximately 50 percent, operation of the Project is likely to cont inue to result in sea turtles entering the intake system

. Capture and release or rehabilitation of these individuals will be required . Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit s the take o f endangered and threatened species without special exemption. The definition of a “take” under the Act is “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduc t” (FWS, 1973). Although it is expected that the PEEC operations will have a positive impact on sea turtles by saving weak or injured animals, that benefit requires the Plant to “capture” or “collect”. Based on this definition, it was concluded that the proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the following listed species and/or their critical habitats:

 loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta )
 green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas )
 hawksbill sea turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) The Project is likely to continue to observe sea turtles entering the intak e system. Even though there is the determination that the P roject “may affect, is likely to adversely affect” the three species listed above, the EPA believes the Project will not jeopardize the continued existence of those species

. It is recommended that NMFS and EPA engage in a formal consultation and prepare a Biological Opinion

. The Biological Opinion should address incidental take

. It is anticipated that an average of five turtles per year may enter the we lls and the incidental take statement should be based on a five

- year rolling average. This measure would allow PEEC to operate as designed while still providing an opportunity for weak , injured and/or stranded turtles to be captured and sent for rehabil itation, if possible. Comment [KB137]: Please provide rationale for “no effect” determination for this speci es. Comment [FPL138]: Recent surveys have documented no occurrence of Johnson’s seagrass in the area influenced by thermal discharges under current operating characteristics (see Figure 7 in BA, all identified areas of Johnson’s seagrass are either outside or at the extrem

e northern edge of the Action Area), and the proposed action will substantially reduce the area influenced by thermal discharges. The proposed action will not result in any dredging or other perturbations of the bottom substrate in the Action Area or other wise deleteriously affect water quality. Therefore, no effect should be anticipated.

Comment [KB139]: NMFS agrees. Comment [FPL140]: Comment acknowledged Comment [KB141]: Isn’t this five times greater than the existing average of 1.3 turtles per year? Comment [FPL142]: There were 4 documented turtles seen in the intake wells in 2010 and 4 documented turtles seen in the intake wells in 2012. When determining the take limit, we used the range instead of the average with a buffer of 1 turtle.August 2012 35 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 

### 8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Applied Biology, Inc. (ABI). May 1987

. Biological impact assessment of thermal discharges from Florida Power & Light Company’s Port Everglades Plant, Broward County, Florida

. Bjorndal, K.A

. 1985

. Nutrition al ecology of sea turtles

. Copeia

. 736. Bowen, B., J.C

. Avise, J.I

. Richardson, A.B

. Meylan, D

. Margaritoulis, and S.R

. Hopkins

Murphy

. 1993

. Population structure of loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Med iterranean Sea

. Conservation Biology 7 (4):834

- 844. Broward County. 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.porteverglades.net/cargo/petroleum/facts

- and

statistics/
Browa rd County , 2012. Retrieved from: www.Broward.org/PORT/MASTERPLAN/Pages/2009 elements.aspx Burke, V

. J., S

. J

. Morreale and E

. A

. Standora

. 1994

. Diet of the Kemp's R idley sea turtle, Lepidochelys k empii , in New York waters

. Fishery Bulletin 92:26

- 32

. Bustard, H.R., P

. Greenham, and C

. Limpus

. 1975

. Nesting behavior of loggerhead and flatback turtles in Queensland, Australia

. Proc

. K

. Ned

. Acad

. Wet., Ser

. C Biol Med Sci

. 78(2):111

- 122. Carr, A.F

. 1940

. A contribution to the herpetology of Florida

. University of Florida Publication, Biological Science Series 3(1): 1

- 118. Carr, A

. 1986

. Rips, FADs, and little loggerheads

. Bioscience

. 36:92

- 100. Carr, A., M.H

. Carr, and A.B

. Me ylan

. 1978

. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 7

. The West Caribbean green turtle colony

. Bull

. Am

. Mus

. Nat

. Hist

. 162(1) 1

- 46. Coyne, M

. 1994

. Feeding ecology of subadult green turtles in south Texas waters

. MS thesis, Texas A&M Univ ersity

. 76pp. DeSola, C.R

. 1935

. Herpetological notes from southeastern Florida

. Copeia 1935 (1): 44

- 45. Dial Cordy and Associates Inc

. (DC&A) 2000

. Marine Seagrass Survey of Port Everglades, Final Report, January 28, 2000

. Jacksonville Beach, Fl orida Dial Cordy and A ssociates Inc. (DC&A) 2001

. Environmental baseline study and impact assessment for Port Everglades Harbor, Final Report, May 31, 2001

. Jacksonville Beach, Florida Dial Cordy and Associates Inc (DC&A)

. 2006

. Marine seagrass surve y of Port Everglades

. Revised final report to U.S

. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, FL

. Dial Cordy and Associates Inc

. (DC&A) 2009

. Marine Seagrass Survey of Port Everglades, Final Report, September 2009

. Jacksonville Di strict, U.S

. Army Corp s of Engineers. Field Code ChangedAugust 2012 36 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc Eaton, C., E. McMichael, B. Witherington, A. Foley, R. Hardy and A. Meylan. 2008. In

- water sea turtle monitoring and research in Florida: review and recommendations. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS

- OPR

- 38. Ehrhart, L.M., W.E

. Redfoot, and D.A

. Bagley

. 1996

. A study of the population ecology of inwater marine turtle populations on the east central coast of Florida

. Comprehensive final report to NOAA

. NMFS

. Florida Department of Transpor tation. (January 1999). Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Surveying & Mapping Office. Retrieved from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapp ing/Manuals/fluccmanual.pdf Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) . 2012. Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center

- Site Certification Application. FPL Group, Inc. Juno Beach, FL. Foley, A. 2012. Personal communication. Henwood, T

. A

. and L

. H

. Ogren

. 1987

. Distribution and migrations of immature Kemp's R idley turtles ( Lepidochelys kempii ) and green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) off Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina

. Northeast Gulf Science, 9(2):153

- 160. Hopkins, S

. R

. and J

. I

. Richardson, eds

. 1984

. Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles

. U.S

. Dept. Comm

. NOAA, NMFS, St

. Petersburg, FL

. Kenworthy, W.J

. 1997

. An updated biological status review and summary of the proceedings of a workshop to review the biological status of the seagrass, Halophila johnsonii Eiseman

. Report to the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD

. Lutcavage, M

. and J.A

. Musick

. 1985

. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia

. Copeia 1985(2):4 49

- 456. Mager, A

. 1985

. Five

- year status reviews of sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973

. U.S

. Dept

. Comm

. NOAA, NMFS, St

. Petersburg, FL

. Magnuson et al

. (National Research Council)

. 1990

. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Cau ses and Prevention

. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. Makowski, C., R.P. Slattery and M. Salmon. 2005. "Shark fishing": a method for determining the abundance and distribution of sea turtles at reef habitats. Herpetological Review 36: 36

- 38. Meylan, A.B., K.A

. Bjorndal and B.J

. Turner

. 1983

. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach, Florida. Post

- nesting movements of Caretta caretta

. Biological Conservation 26:79

- 90. Meylan, A

. and A

. Redlow

. 2006

. Eretmochelys imbricata

- Hawksbill T urtle

. Chelonian Research Monographs 3: 105

- 127. Meylan, A., B

. Schroeder, and A

. Mosier

. 1995

. Sea turtle nesting activity in the S tate of Florida, 1979

- 1992

. Florida Marine Research Publicat ions.
National Marine Fisheries Service

. 2000

. Status review of the smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ).August 2012 37 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Recovery plan for the smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ). Prepared by the smalltooth sawfish recovery team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Si lver Spring, MD.
National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ). Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service

. Washing ton D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan for the U

. S

. population of Atlantic green turtle

. National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S

. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 1992. Recovery plan for the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii )

. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C

. 40 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S

. Fish and

. Wildlife Service

. 1993

. Re covery Plan for hawksbill turtles in the U.S

. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico

. National Marine Fisheries Service, St

. Petersburg, Florida.
National Marine Fisheries Service

. 2002

. Recovery Plan f or Johnson's s eagrass ( Halophila john sonii )

. Prepared by the Johnson's Seagrass Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland

. 134 pages. National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service and SEMARNAT. 2010. Bi

National recovery plan for t he Kemp's Ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochyles kempii ). Second Revision. NMFS, Silver Springs, MD. Norton, S. 2012. Personal communication. Ogren, L

. H

. 1989

. Distribution of juvenile and sub

- adult Kemp's R idley sea turtle: Preliminary results from 198 4

- 1987 surveys

. In Caillouet, C

. W

. and A

. M

. Landry, eds

. First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management

. Texas A & M Univ., Galveston, TX, Oct

. 1

- 4, 1985

. TAMU

- SG

- 89

- 105, pp

. 116

- 123. Pritchard, P

. and R

. Márquez

. 1973

. Kemp's Ridley turtles or Atlantic R idley, Lepidochelys kempii

. IUCN Monog

. No

. 2, Marine Turtle Series. Simpendorfer, C. and T. Wiley. 2006. Final report

- national smalltooth sawfish encounter database. Mote Marine La boratory technical report 1134. Sarasota, Florida. Turtle Expert Working Group

. 1998

. An assessment of the Kemp’s R idley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic

. NOAA Tech

. Memorandum, NMFSSEFSC

409: 1

- 96.
Tu rtle Expert Working Group. 2000

. Assessment update for the Kemp's R idley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the Western North Atlantic

. U.S

. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS

- SEFSC

- 444:1

- 115.August 2012 38 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc USACE. 2005. Maintenance dredging

- Port E verglades, Broward County, Florida. Final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. USACE, Jacksonville District. 208pg.
USACE 2005b. USACE Sea Turtle Data Warehouse. Retrieved from: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/project.cfm?Id=442&Code=Project 

### U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), 1973. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa

library/pdf/ESAall.pdf Virnstein, R.W and L.M

. Hall

. 2009

. Northern Range extension of the seagrasses Halophilia johnsonii and Halophilia decipiens alo ng the east coast of Florida, USA

. Aquatic Botany 90:89

- 92. Walls, Jerry G., Fishes of the Northern Gulf of Mexico., T.F.H., 1975. Wershoven, R. and J.L. Wershoven. 1992. Juvenile green turtles in their offshore habitat in Broward County, Florida: a five year review. In: Salmon, M. and J. Wyneken (compilers). Proceedings of the eleventh annual workshop on sea turtle biology and conservation. NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS

- SEFC

- 320. 121

- 123. Witherington, B.E. 2012. Personal communication.
With erington, B.E

. and L.M

. Ehrhart

. 1989

. Status and reproductive characteristics of green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) nesting in Florida

. Proc

. 2nd Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium

. Pg

. 351

- 352

. Wood, L.D., R. Hardy, P. Meylan, and A. Meylan. In Press. Characterization of a hawksbill turtle ( Eretmochyles imbricat

a ) foraging aggregation in a high latitude reef community in Southeastern Florida, USA. Wyneken, J

. and M

. Salmon

. 1992

. Frenzy and postfrenzy swimming activity in loggerhead, green , and leatherback hatchling sea turtles

. Copeia

. (2): 478

- 484.August 2012 39 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 

## TABLESAugust 2012 40 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc TABLE 1 . ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIE S SERVICE IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC


### Listed Species Scientific Name 

### Statu s Date Listed Marine Mammals 

### blue whale Balaenoptera musculus 

### Endangered 12/02/70 finback whale Balaenoptera physalus 

### Endangered 12/02/70 humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae 

### Endangered 12/02/70 North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glac ialis 

### Endangered 12/02/70 sei whale Balaenoptera borealis 

### Endangered 12/02/70 sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus 

### Endangered 12/02/70 Turtles 

### green sea turtle Chelonia mydas 

### Endangered 07/28/78 hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricat a 

### Endangered 06/02/70 Kemp's Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii 

### Endangered 12/02/70 leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea 

### Endangered 06/02/70 loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta 

### Threatened 09/22/11 Fish 

### shortnose sturgeon Ac ipenser brevirostrum 

### Endangered 03/11/67 smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata 

### Endangered 04/01/03 Invertebrates 

### elkhorn coral Acropora palmata 

### Threatened 0 5/ 0 9/06 staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis 

### Threatened 0 5/ 0 9/06 Seagrasses 

### Joh nson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii 

### Threatened 09/14/98August 2012 41 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF SEA TURTLE ENCOUNTERS IN THE PORT EVERGLADES PLANT INTAKE CANAL SYSTEM 1990 THROUGH 2012 (D ata from FPL, STSSN, rehabilitation facility, and necropsy report records )

DATE SPECIES LIFE STAGE ALIVE/

DEAD DESCRIPTION

6/23/1991 Caretta

caretta Subadult Alive Removed alive from intake canal

. Carapace and flipper injuries consistent with vessel strike

. Transported to Ocean World for re habilitation, released 7/25/91. STSSN fil e # KCF1991062301.

2/11/1991 Eretmochelys

imbricata Juvenile Alive Removed alive from intake canal

. Old, healed flipper injury

. Transported to Ocean World for rehabilitation, released 9/8/1991. STSSN file # CXO1991021101

.

4/07/1992 Caretta

caretta Adul t

female Alive Removed alive from intake canal

. Plastron and flipper damage

. Transported to Ocean World for rehabilitation, released 4/15/92 at Fort Lauderdale Beach

. STSSN file # REM1992040701.

1/29/1993 Chelonia

mydas Juvenile Alive Removed alive fr om intake canal

. Entangled in debris

. Old, healed flipper damage

. Transported to rehabilitation facility, released 2/15/93 one mile offshore of Port Everglades

. STSSN file # SXG1993012901.
1/14/1994 Unidentified Unidentified Dead Removed dead from th e intake canal

. Found moderately decomposed

. STSSN file # JRW1994011401.
2/21/1994 Eretmochelys

imbricata Unidentified Alive Recovered alive and uninjured from the intake canal

. Released near Plant same day

. STSSN file # JRW1994022101.

4/24/2000 Ca retta

caretta Adult

female Alive Recovered alive and uninjured from the intake well area
. Released same day at Frank C

. Tootie Adler Park

. STSSN file # MJB2000042401

.
4/07/2003 Caretta

caretta Subadult Dead Recovered dead from intake canal

. Moderately decomposed

. Slightly emaciated with apparent propeller wounds from probable boat strike

. STSSN file # SXO2003040701.

7/16/2004 Caretta

caretta Subadult Alive Recovered alive from the intake canal

. Old, healed wounds consistent with constriction injur ies

. Oil and tar stains on turtle

. Released same day

. STSSN file # EPD2004071601.
10/20/2005 Caretta

caretta Subadult Dead Recovered dead from intake canal

. Found severely decomposed

. STSSN file # SXO2005102001.

12/28/2005 Caretta

caretta Subadult Dead Recovered dead from intake canal

. Found severely decomposed

. Evidence of injury consistent with vessel strike

. STSSN file # KXW2005122801.August 2012 42 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc DATE SPECIES LIFE STAGE ALIVE/

DEAD DESCRIPTION

5/27/2006 Caretta

caretta Subadult Alive Recovered alive from intake canal

. Fresh propeller wound to cara pace
. Transported to Center for Rehabilitation of Wildlife (CROW) in Sanibel Island Florida

. Released 8/17/06

. STSSN file # MXB2006052701.
10/30/2006 Caretta

caretta Adult

female Dead Recovered dead from intake canal

. Found severely decomposed

. STS SN file # SXR2006103001.

7/11/2007 Caretta

caretta Subadult Dead Recovered dead from the intake canal

. Thought to have floated in dead

. Moderately decomposed, emaciated, with old, healed injuries

. STSSN file # KFS2007071101.
7/13/2007 Unidentified Un identified Alive Recovered alive and uninjured from intake canal, released by plant staff at discharge canal

. STSSN file # KFS2007071301

. 7/13/2007 Unidentified Unidentified Alive Recovered alive and uninjured from intake canal, released by plant staff a t discharge canal

. STSSN file # KFS2007071302

. 7/13/2007 Unidentified Unidentified Alive Recovered alive and uninjured from intake canal, released by plant staff at discharge canal

. STSSN file # KFS2007071303

. 7/17/2008 Unidentified Unidentified Dead R ecovered dead from intake wells

. Severe decomposition, only pieces of carapace and bone recovered

. STSSN file #JXW2008071701.

10/8/2008 Caretta

caretta Unidentified Alive Recovered alive from the intake canal by St

. Lucie power plant staff

. Fresh inju ries consistent with entanglement in rope and/or net

. Old, partially healed amputation of right front flipper

. Transferred to Loggerhead Marinelife Center for rehabilitation

. Released at Juno Beach 5/13/2010

. STSSN file # MJB2008100101. 5/25/2009 Care tta

caretta Unidentified Alive Recovered alive and uninjured by FWCC staff

. Released same day

. No STSSN report found. 8/31/2009 Caretta

caretta Unidentified Alive Recovered alive and uninjured by FWCC staff

. Released same day

. No STSSN report found.

12/14/2009 Chelonia

mydas Adult

female Dead Recovered dead from the intake wells

. Extensive crushing injury to carapace, neck, and plastron

. Salvaged and transported to Dr

. Brian Stacy at University of Florida for necropsy

. Necropsy concluded that caus e of death could not be conclusively determined, and traumatic injuries were most likely sustained postmortem

. STSSN file # MXW2009121401

. Necropsy report file # ST09

- 173.

10/9/2010 Chelonia

mydas Juvenile Alive Recovered alive from the intake canal

. Carapace injury consistent with a boat strike

. Transported to Miami Seaquarium for rehabilitation

. STSSN file # NMT2010100901.

10/24/2010 Chelonia

mydas Juvenile Alive Recovered alive from intake canal

. No external injuries but significant fibropapil loma tumors

. Transported to Mote Marine Lab for rehabilitation

. STSSN file # CFG2010102401.August 2012 43 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc DATE SPECIES LIFE STAGE ALIVE/

DEAD DESCRIPTION

10/25/2010 Caretta

caretta Unidentified Alive Observed in intake canal

. Turtle swam out of well area on its own

. No visible injury

. No STSSN report found

12 /31/2010 Caretta

caretta Subadult Dead Recovered dead from intake canal

. No apparent injury

. Documented by Broward County environmental staff . S TSSN file # TXK2010123101.
1/27/2011 Unidentified Unidentified Alive Observed in intake canal

. Turtle swam out of intake well area on its own

. No visible injury

. No STSSN report found.
5/26/2011 Unidentified Unidentified Alive Observed in intake canal

. Turtle swam out of intake well area on its own

. No visible injury

. No STSSN report found.
4/16/2012 Car etta

caretta Unidentified Dead Recovered dead from intake canal with apparent post

- mortem injury to head, neck, and carapace

. No STSSN report found.

4/21/2012 Caretta

caretta Subadult Dead Recovered dead from intake canal with injury to head and carapace consistent with a vessel strike

. Moderately decomposed

. STSSN file # SXW2012042101.
5/7/2012 Caretta

caretta Unidentified Alive Recovered alive from intake canal

. No apparent injury

. Released same day

. No STSSN report found.

6/12/2012 Caretta

care tta Adult

female Dead Recovered dead from intake canal by Nova University staff

. No apparent injury or abnormality

. Severely decomposed

. STSSN file # EJS2012061201August 2012 44 113

- 87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11

- 2

- 12.doc 

## FIGURES