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 Service

Southeast Regional Office

263 13th 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 30303-8960
August 2012 i 113-87618 

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 and Physical Conditions................................................................................. 2

1.3 FPL’s Existing Environmental Programs..................................................................... 4

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AND ACTION AREA..................................................... 5

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

2.2 The Action Area ......................................................................................................... 98

2.3 Project Benefits........................................................................................................ 109

3.0 LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE ACTION AREA ................. 111110

3.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) ........................................................... 121110

3.1.1 General Information .................................................................................. 1211

3.1.2 Plant Specific Information .................................................................... 131211

3.2 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas)................................................................... 131312

3.2.1 General Information .............................................................................. 131312

3.2.2 Plant Specific Information ........................................................................ 1413

3.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)................................................... 1514

3.3.1 General Information .................................................................................. 1514

3.3.2 Plant Specific Information ........................................................................ 1514

3.4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)................................................ 161514

3.4.1 General Information .............................................................................. 161514

3.4.2 Plant Specific Information ........................................................................ 1615

3.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) .............................................. 171615

3.5.1 General Information .............................................................................. 171615

3.5.2 Plant Specific Information .................................................................... 181716

3.6 Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata)................................................................... 1817

3.6.1 General Information .................................................................................. 1817

3.6.2 Plant Specific Information .................................................................... 191817

3.7 Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) ............................................................. 1918

3.7.1 General Information .................................................................................. 1918

3.7.2 Plant Specific Information ........................................................................ 1918

3.8 Other Listed Species........................................................................................... 201918

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE CONDITIONS......................................................... 201918

4.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) ............................................................... 2019

4.2 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas)....................................................................... 2120

4.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)............................................... 232221

4.4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata).................................................... 2322

4.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) .............................................. 242322

4.6 Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata)............................................................... 252423

4.7 Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) ............................................................. 2524

5.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................ 2625

5.1 Overview of the Proposed Action .......................................................................... 2625

5.1.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta).................................................. 2726

5.1.2 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas)...................................................... 282726

5.1.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea).................................. 282726

5.1.4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)....................................... 2827
August 2012 ii 113-87618 

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11-2-12.doc

5.1.5 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) ..................................... 2827

5.1.6 Unidentified Sea Turtle Species................................................................ 2827

5.1.7 Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata)...................................................... 2827

5.1.8 Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) ............................................ 292827

5.2 Changes in Potential Effects Under the Proposed Action ...................................... 2928

5.2.1 Changes During the Construction Phase of PEEC.................................... 2928

5.2.2 Changes During Operation of PEEC......................................................... 2928

5.3 Minimization of Potential Impacts and Conservation Efforts under the 

Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 3029

5.3.1 Minimization ......................................................................................... 303029

5.3.2 Conservation Efforts ............................................................................. 323130

6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS................................................................................................. 3231

7.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 3332

8.0 LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................................ 3534

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF 

THE NATIONAL MARINE 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 Everglades 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 Map
August 2012 iii 113-87618 

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11-2-12.doc

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BA Biological Assessment

BTU British Thermal Unit

cm centimeter

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CPUE Catch per Unit Effort

EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

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 Waterway

INBS Index Nesting Beach Survey 

IWW Industrial Wastewater

IRG Inwater Research Group

km kilometer 

MGD million gallons per day

MW megawatt 

NOx nitrogen oxides

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

PCTS Public Consultation Tracking System

PM particulate matter

PM10 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 Channel

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

del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales)

SCL straight carapace length 

SO2 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 Services
August 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 the 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) Project (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 emission 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 February 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 caretta)

 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 identified 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 

representatives 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 consultation 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-595 and is locally accessible by Eller 

Drive to the south. Roadways that surround the Plant include S.E. 14th Avenue to the east, 

Eisenhower Drive to the west and S.E. 26th Street to the north. The Port entrance channel and the 

Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) 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, military and homeland security and tourism), a majority of 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 further 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 petroleum 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 conditions 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 considered 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 discussion
August 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, respectively. 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 Title 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 stacks. 

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 under 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 water 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 Broward 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 discharge 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 emergent 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 the point where the intake withdraws cooling 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 

connected 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 coordinating 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 

process
August 2012 4 113-87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11-2-12.doc

The intake structure has several components (Figure 3). The concrete structures that separate the 

cooling 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 large 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 through 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 significant 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 impacts 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]: No
August 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 observed 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 period 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 Port area, be transported 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 significant injury or abnormality and were released back to the environment on the same day.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AND ACTION AREA

This Section provides a description of the proposed action, Project features that reduce or eliminate 

environmental impacts, key Project components and their operation and Project benefits. The Action 

Area is also defined in this Section as PPE, its circulating water system, the receiving water body 

influenced 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 

Eexisting infrastructure atfor PPE, including access roads, rights-of-way for fueling infrastructure, 

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 redevelopment of PEECPPE while minimizing 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. Monitoring 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 NMFS 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 process.

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 project
August 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 will 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 Phases:

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 the 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 of 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 (tanks, 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 existing cooling water discharge canal. 

Plant Operational 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 

PEEC 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 will 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 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 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 4th 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 approximately 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 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 will be 635 MGD,

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 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 approximately 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 process 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-theart 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 

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 

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 [KB27]: So, there is still the potential 

for sea turtle take during the three-year construction 

period?

Comment [FPL28]: Yes; however, since there 

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 will be testing the cooling system 

starting in the 4th quarter 2015, so intermittent 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 

section
August 2012 8 113-87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11-2-12.doc

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.

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. Therefore, 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 thermal 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 the 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 gas 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, iIt is anticipated that an average 

of less 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. even dDuring emergency situations 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 impacts 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. The 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 (SO2), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

particle size of 10 μm or less (PM10), and other fuel-bound contaminants. Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

emissions will be reduced by approximately 3900 tons per year (an 85 percent reduction), SO2

emissions will be reduced by approximately 9000 tons per year (a 95 percent reduction), and 

particulate emissions (PM and PM10) will be reduced by approximately 350 tons per year (a 50 

percent reduction). Due to increased generation capacity and utilization, greenhouse gas emissions at 

PEEC will increase despite a carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rate that is approximately 50 percent 

Comment [KB33]: All in uplands?

Comment [FPL34]: Yes

Comment [KB35]: EPA’s purview

Comment [FPL36]: Comment acknowledged
August 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 efficient plants, total greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO2) 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 “Action 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 canal 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 the 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 PEEC 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 Classification 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 (FLUCFCS 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 meter 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 upland 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 (Poinsettia 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 surrounding the PPE property. 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 Area on the eastern shore 

of the ICW across from PPE. 

The only aquatic environments 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 

environments within the Action Area adjacent to the PEEC property 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 Expansion Project have documented 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, attributed 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 potential 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 reduces 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 

infrastructure (gas pipeline), (3) existing 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 impacts 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 there are seagrasses in these canals, are there 

any aspects of project construction or postconstruction 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 permit. The survey covered portions of the 

intake canal. Only 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 cumulative effects analysis of the 

biological opinion for this project.

Comment [FPL50]: Subject for discussion
August 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 Project 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 of 

the existing site, facilities and committed resources such as water, should not result in additional land 

use impacts such as impacts on wetlands associated with locating new gas pipelines or transmission 

facilities. Thus, 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 improve several other 

existing conditions such as the discharge water quality, reduction of both the volume of cooling water 

flow and the thermal loading into the local waters, local air quality by reducing system-wide 

greenhouse gas emissions by 22 million tons over the life of the Project and providing economic 

stimulus locally and nationally through direct and indirect job creation, material procurement and 

increased tax basis. The above benefits will be achieved with no need for additional linear facilities 

like transmission lines, natural gas transmission, fuel piping or water transmission. In addition, the 

Project will result in more than $400 million in savings compared to the continued operation of the 

existing units and over $800 million in savings over the construction of a greenfield 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 operating 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 the Project to be the most 

prudent 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 these 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 CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE 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 also. 

Subject for discussion
August 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 below 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 hemisphere for 

loggerheads (NMFS & USFWS, 2008). Recent studies have revealed three genetically distinct 

nesting populations in the southeast U.S.: the northern nesting population (North Carolina to Cape 

Canaveral), the South Florida population (Cape 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 differ 

significantly from zero (Witherington, 2012).

Loggerheads nest in the southeast U.S. from April through September, with the peak nesting in June 

and July (NMFS and USFWS, 1991a). The nesting process is remarkably stereotyped and is 

described in Bustard et al. (1975). Hatchlings 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 to 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 Caribbean 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-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 include 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 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 of 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 authors 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 maintained 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 dominant 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 recorded 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 and 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 data 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 developmental 

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 suggested 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 would digest algae less efficiently and vice versa (Bjorndal,

1985).

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 

Florida 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 period from 1989 through 2011 shows a marked and steady increase in nesting. There 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 (Witherington, 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 include 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 immediate 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 juveniles, 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 carapace lengths 
August 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 the greatest number of captures 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 strandings (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 Leatherback 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 

primarily 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 for 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 

documented 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 system 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]: The 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 endangered in 1970 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 known 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). Early reports mention 

southeast Florida and the Florida Keys as having both the greatest abundance of hawksbills in the 

state and appropriate hawksbill habitat (DeSola, 1935; Carr, 1940). It is assumed that nesting beaches 

in the Caribbean Basin are the recruitment 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 Yucatan 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 documented 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 reef 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 sheltered coastal areas and frequent larger estuaries, bays, and lagoons 

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 restricted 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 of 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, nesting 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 noted 

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 recruitment 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 Working 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 endangered 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 smalltooth 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 been 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 latitudinal 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 18o 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 been 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) recreational 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, 2006). Its 

critical habitat is undefined at this time; however, it will likely be considered during the federal 

Comment [KB69]: This statement 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 2003.

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 publication (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 

encounters 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

Halophilia 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 Register, 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 conducted 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 Action 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 shallow water, less than one 

meter, but does occur in water up to three meters in the Action 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 potential to be affected by the proposed action and so 

will not be discussed in detail.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 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 following 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 and 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 prevalent 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 2011 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 marine area. A review of STSSN records for inshore strandings in 
August 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 

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, including heavy 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 Environmental Assessment for the Port maintenance 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, 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 currently 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 Everglades Master Plan document (Broward County, 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.

4.2 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

 Marine debris entanglement

 Hook and line fisheries

 Oil and gas exploration, development and transportation

 Dredging

 Marina and dock development

 Seagrass degradation

Comment [KB71]: Will not be included in the 

cumulative effects analysis of our biological opinion 

for this project because the effects of the Port 

expansion will undergo separate section 7 

consultation with NMFS.

Comment [FPL72]: Subject for discussion
August 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 County, 

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 vessel strikes, and that these types 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 inshore 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 Area 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, diesel, 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 suitable 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 Engineers (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, 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 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. 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 shallow 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 Everglades Master Plan document (Broward County, 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 discussion
August 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 coriacea)

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, development 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 including 

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, including heavy 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 Florida 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

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. 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 high 
August 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 transshipped through the Port in 

2005, including heavy 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 period 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, fuel, tar and chemical pollution

 Dredging

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, & 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 evidence 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 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 heavy fuel oil, diesel, gasoline and jet fuel (Broward 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 Environmental Assessment for the Port maintenance 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, 2005b) 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 currently very intensively developed and the potential 
August 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 smalltooth 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 particularly widespread in the highly urbanized marine environment of 

southeast Florida. The Action Area is currently 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 Everglades Master Plan document (Broward County, 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 from in and overwater structures

 Prop scarring and anchor mooring

 Trampling

 Altered water quality (such as stormwater runoff and turbidity)

 Storms

 Siltation

Comment [KB75]: This also includes freshwater 

pulses from the discharge canals.

Comment [FPL76]: Comment acknowledged
August 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 Action 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, since the waterways are used primarily for navigation. 

Water quality in the area varies due to tidal influence, stormwater run-off from the surrounding urban 

environment and fuel from high boat usage. Storms affect the area on a seasonal basis, including 

hurricanes, 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 PROPOSED 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 identified 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 1960s. 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 strike, 

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 condition 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. Sea 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 Port 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 found 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 same 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 or 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 caretta)

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 were recovered or 

observed alive and nine loggerheads were recovered dead. 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. Based 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 

loggerheads, 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 entire 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 to every 4 

hours (6 times in a 24 hour period) as a conservation 

...

Comment [KB93]: Out of 29

Comment [FPL94]: Comment acknowledged

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 encounters with green turtles in the intake 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, it 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 uninjured 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 (Lepidochelys 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. Five 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 from 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 FPL 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 Proposed 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, there 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 this 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. 

The intake structure will maintain the four 12 ft 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 sawfish. 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 the 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 

the 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 discussion
August 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 structure 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 will 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 easier 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 debris. 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 will 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 

water 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 combination, 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 proposed 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 infirmities 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 swimming 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 

again, 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 postconstruction velocity 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]: Please see figure
August 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 otherwise 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 Section 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 unloading 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 significant 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 have 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 approximately 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 extent 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 Johnson'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 intake 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 figure
August 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 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 per year). In an attempt to provide further protection to the sea 

turtles in the area, FPL would like to propose additional conservation 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 further 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 incident. 

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 wells four times in a 24-hour 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 capture 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 would be submitted to NMFS. 

This additional information will be used to evaluate the operations 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 Project 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 that will involve the northern segment of the 

Action Area, the Port Everglades Expansion Project.

The Dania Cut-off Canal is permitted to be 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 intake 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 biologist 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 section 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 ESA 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 berths 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 federal 

channel 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 ft) 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 federal channel edge near the south end of berth 29 to a width of about 130 ft 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 not expected to affect listed species in 

the Action Area. No cumulative effects upon listed species under the ESA are anticipated.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the proposed action will have no effect 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 macrocephalus) 

 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 species 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 in 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 (Acropora 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 continue 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 prohibits the take of 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 conduct” (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 intake system. Even though there 

is the determination that the Project “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 wells 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 rehabilitation, if possible.

Comment [KB137]: Please provide rationale for 

“no effect” determination for this species.

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 extreme 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 otherwise 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. Nutritional ecology of sea turtles. Copeia. 736.

Bowen, B., J.C. Avise, J.I. Richardson, A.B. Meylan, D. Margaritoulis, and S.R. HopkinsMurphy. 1993. Population structure of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the

northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Conservation Biology 7 (4):834-

844.

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

Broward 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 Ridley sea turtle,

Lepidochelys kempii, 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. Meylan. 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 University. 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, Florida

Dial Cordy and Associates 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 survey 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 District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Field Code Changed
August 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 Transportation. (January 1999). Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms

Classification System. Surveying & Mapping Office. Retrieved from

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/surveyingandmapping/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 Ridley

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):449-456.

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: Causes 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 Turtle. 

Chelonian Research Monographs 3: 105-127.

Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State of

Florida, 1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications.

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, Silver 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. Washington 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. Recovery 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 for Johnson's seagrass (Halophila 

johnsonii). 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. BiNational recovery plan for the 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 Ridley sea turtle: Preliminary

results from 1984-1987 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 Ridley, Lepidochelys

kempii. IUCN Monog. No. 2, Marine Turtle Series.

Simpendorfer, C. and T. Wiley. 2006. Final report - national smalltooth sawfish encounter 

database. Mote Marine Laboratory technical report 1134. Sarasota, Florida.

Turtle Expert Working Group. 1998. An assessment of the Kemp’s Ridley and loggerhead sea

turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA Tech. Memorandum, NMFSSEFSC409: 1-96.

Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp's Ridley 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 Everglades, 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/esalibrary/pdf/ESAall.pdf

Virnstein, R.W and L.M. Hall. 2009. Northern Range extension of the seagrasses 

Halophilia johnsonii and Halophilia decipiens along 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.

Witherington, 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 imbricata) 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

TABLES
August 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 FISHERIES SERVICE IN THE 

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Listed Species Scientific Name Status

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 glacialis 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 imbricata 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 Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered 03/11/67 

smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata Endangered 04/01/03 

Invertebrates 

elkhorn coral Acropora palmata Threatened 05/09/06 

staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis Threatened 05/09/06 

Seagrasses 

Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii Threatened 09/14/98 
August 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 

(Data 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 rehabilitation, 

released 7/25/91.

STSSN file # 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

Adult 

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 from 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 the 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 Caretta 

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 injuries. 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 carapace. 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. 

STSSN 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 Unidentified 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 at 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

Recovered 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 injuries 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 Caretta 

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 cause 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 fibropapilloma 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. STSSN 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 Caretta 

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 

caretta

Adult 

female Dead

Recovered dead from intake canal by Nova 

University staff. No apparent injury or abnormality. 

Severely decomposed. 

STSSN file # EJS2012061201
August 2012 44 113-87618

PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev 1_FPL Responses 11-2-12.doc

FIGURES