Biological Assessment for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Florida Power and Light Company Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Nuclear Project Combined License Application Docket Nos. 052-040 and 052-041 and Permit Application No. SAJ-2009-02417

Miami-Dade County, Florida

February 2015

Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... F2.1-1 2.0 Turkey Point Site Description ...... F2.2-1 2.1 Proposed Facilities ...... F2.2-1 2.2 Ecological Resources Onsite ...... F2.2-6 2.3 Ecological Resources Offsite ...... F2.2-9 2.3.1 Biscayne Bay and Card Sound ...... F2.2-9 2.3.2 Transmission-Line Corridors ...... F2.2-9 2.3.3 Reclaimed Water Pipeline Corridor ...... F2.2-10 2.3.4 Potable Water Pipeline Corridor ...... F2.2-10 3.0 Proposed Federal Action ...... F2.3-1 3.1 Impacts from Construction ...... F2.3-3 3.1.1 Turkey Point Site ...... F2.3-3 3.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors ...... F2.3-6 3.1.3 Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant and Pipeline Corridor ...... F2.3-6 3.1.4 Potable Water Pipeline Corridor ...... F2.3-6 3.2 Impacts from Operation ...... F2.3-7 3.2.1 Turkey Point Site ...... F2.3-7 3.2.2 Transmission-Line Corridors ...... F2.3-14 4.0 Protected Species Descriptions ...... F2.4-1 4.1 Florida Bonneted Bat ...... F2.4-1 4.2 Florida Panther ...... F2.4-1 4.3 Florida Manatee ...... F2.4-2 4.4 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow ...... F2.4-3 4.5 Rufa Red Knot ...... F2.4-4 4.6 Piping Plover ...... F2.4-4 4.7 Wood Stork ...... F2.4-5 4.8 Everglade Snail Kite ...... F2.4-6 4.9 Roseate Tern ...... F2.4-7 4.10 American Crocodile ...... F2.4-7 4.11 Eastern Indigo Snake ...... F2.4-12 4.12 Florida Leafwing Butterfly ...... F2.4-13 4.13 Miami Blue Butterfly ...... F2.4-13 4.14 Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly ...... F2.4-14 4.15 Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterfly ...... F2.4-14 4.16 Crenulate Lead-Plant ...... F2.4-14 4.17 Blodgett’s Silverbush ...... F2.4-15

iii

4.18 Florida Brickell-Bush ...... F2.4-15 4.19 Deltoid Spurge ...... F2.4-15 4.20 Pineland Sandmat ...... F2.4-16 4.21 Garber’s Spurge ...... F2.4-16 4.22 Okeechobee Gourd ...... F2.4-16 4.23 Small’s Milkpea ...... F2.4-17 4.24 Beach Jacquemontia ...... F2.4-17 4.25 Sand Flax ...... F2.4-17 4.26 Carter’s Small-Flowered Flax ...... F2.4-17 4.27 Tiny Polygala ...... F2.4-18 4.28 Everglades Bully ...... F2.4-18 4.29 Florida Bristle Fern ...... F2.4-18 5.0 Potential Environmental Effects of the Proposed Actions ...... F2.5-1 5.1 Florida Bonneted Bat ...... F2.5-1 5.2 Florida Panther ...... F2.5-1 5.3 Florida Manatee ...... F2.5-2 5.4 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow ...... F2.5-4 5.5 Rufa Red Knot ...... F2.5-4 5.6 Piping Plover ...... F2.5-4 5.7 Wood Stork ...... F2.5-5 5.8 Everglade Snail Kite ...... F2.5-6 5.9 Roseate Tern ...... F2.5-6 5.10 American Crocodile ...... F2.5-6 5.10.1 Impacts to Critical Habitat From Power Block Construction ...... F2.5-7 5.10.2 Impacts of Muck Disposal ...... F2.5-7 5.10.3 Impacts of Dewatering Discharges ...... F2.5-8 5.10.4 Impacts of Noise, Light, and Vibration ...... F2.5-8 5.10.5 Impacts of Vehicular Collisions ...... F2.5-9 5.11 Eastern Indigo Snake ...... F2.5-12 5.12 Florida Leafwing Butterfly ...... F2.5-12 5.13 Miami Blue Butterfly ...... F2.5-13 5.14 Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly ...... F2.5-13 5.15 Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterfly ...... F2.5-13 5.16 Crenulate Lead-Plant ...... F2.5-14 5.17 Florida Brickell-Bush ...... F2.5-15 5.18 Deltoid Spurge ...... F2.5-15 5.19 Garber’s Spurge ...... F2.5-16 5.20 Okeechobee Gourd ...... F2.5-16 5.21 Small’s Milkpea ...... F2.5-16 5.22 Beach Jacquemontia ...... F2.5-16

iv 5.23 Carter’s Small-Flowered Flax ...... F2.5-16 5.24 Tiny Polygala ...... F2.5-17 6.0 Cumulative Effects ...... F2.6-1 6.1 Turkey Point Site Activities ...... F2.6-1 6.2 Continued Population Growth and Development ...... F2.6-3 6.3 Everglades/Biscayne National Parks, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary ...... F2.6-4 6.4 Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition Projects ...... F2.6-5 6.5 Global Climate Change ...... F2.6-5 6.6 Cumulative Impacts Summary ...... F2.6-7 7.0 Conclusions ...... F2.7-1 8.0 References ...... F2.8-1

v

Figures

2-1 Turkey Point Site and 50-Mile Region ...... F2.2-2 2-2 Location of Proposed Units 6 and 7 Plant Area within the Turkey Point Site ...... F2.2-3 2-3 Offsite Facilities Related to the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 ...... F2.2-5 2-4 2009 Fish Sampling Locations on the Turkey Point Site ...... F2.2-8 3-1 Location of Muck Spoils Areas within the IWF ...... F2.3-5 3-2 Schematic of Hydrologic and Mass Exchange Processes Considered in Estimating the Effects of Drift Deposition on the Cooling Canals, Model Lands, and Biscayne Bay ...... F2.3-12 3-3 Cooling-Canal Volumes Calculated by the Review Team from Ecology Flux Measurements and Golder Associates, Inc. Volumes and Areas...... F2.3-12 3-4 Concentrations of 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Based on Annual Average Drift Flux from the Cooling Towers over a 4-Year Period. Hydrologic conditions are those used to estimate the cooling-canal volumes shown in EIS Figure 5-2...... F2.3-13 4-1 Critical Habitat for the Florida Manatee near the Turkey Point Site ...... F2.4-3 4-2 Critical Habitat for the American Crocodile near the Turkey Point Site| ...... F2.4-8 4-3 Locations of Crocodile Nests in the Turkey Point Cooling-Canal System, 1978−2010 ...... 4-11 4-4 Crocodile Nests Observed in 2011 and 2012 ...... F2.4-12

Tables

1-1 Federally Listed Species Under the Jurisdiction of the FWS Known or Expected to Occur on or in the Vicinity of the Turkey Point Site or along Routes for Associated Transmission-Line Corridors, Pipeline Corridors, and Other Offsite Facilities ...... F2.1-3 3-1 Estimated Deposition Rates for TDS and Constituent (C) Concentrations for Reclaimed Wastewater and Biscayne Bay Seawater on Aquatic Resources at or near the Turkey Point Site Resulting from Cooling-Tower Operation ...... F2.3-11 3-2 Estimated Contaminant Concentrations in the Cooling Canal from Drift Deposition. Detection or reporting limits are provided for comparison ...... F2.3-14 4-1 American Crocodile Monitoring Results at the Turkey Point Site, 2000−2012 ...... F2.4-10 5-1 Comparison of Predicted Concentrations of Chemicals from Cooling-Tower Deposition During Reclaimed Water Use to Analytical Method Detection Limits and Toxicological Criteria or Benchmarks ...... F2.5-10 7-1 Summary of Impacts on Listed Species from the Construction and Operation of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 ...... F2.7-1

vi Abbreviations/Acronyms

°F degrees Fahrenheit > greater than ac acre(s) BA biological assessment BMP Best Management Practice CEC chemical of emerging concern CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan CFA Core Foraging Area CFR Code of Federal Regulations COL combined construction permit and operating license CWA Clean Water Act (formerly Federal Water Pollution Control Act) dB decibel(s) EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FLUCFCS Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System FPL Florida Power and Light Company Ft foot (feet) FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service µg/L microgram(s) per liter g gram(s) g/m2/mo gram(s) per square meter per month gpm gallon(s) per minute ha hectare(s) IWF industrial wastewater facility kg kilogram(s) kg/ha/mo kilogram(s) per hectare per month km kilometer(s) km2 square kilometer(s) kV kilovolt(s) m meter(s) m2 square meter(s) MDWASD Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department Mgd million gallons per day mi mile(s) MW(e) megawatt(s) electric MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal

vii

NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOEC no-observed effects concentration NPS National Park Service NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission µPa micropascal(s) ppt parts per thousand RCW radial collector well RMS root mean square RWTF reclaimed water treatment facility SCA Site Certification Application SDWWTP (Miami-Dade) South District Wastewater Treatment Plant SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SOA similarity of appearance TDS total dissolved solids TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen TP total phosphorus USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VOCs volatile organic compounds

viii Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 1.0 Introduction

2 For the purpose of this biological assessment (BA), the proposed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 3 Commission (NRC or the Commission) Federal action under consideration is the issuance, 4 under the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 (TN251), of 5 two combined construction permit and operating licenses (combined licenses or COLs) 6 authorizing the construction and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 at Florida Power and Light 7 Company’s (FPL’s) Turkey Point site, located near Homestead, Florida, in Miami-Dade County. 8 The proposed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) Federal action is the issuance 9 of a Department of the Army permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 10 USC 1344 et seq.) (TN1019) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 11 403 et seq.) (TN660) authorizing work in waters of the United States.

12 By letter dated June 30, 2009 (FPL 2009-TN1229), as supplemented by a letter dated August 7, 13 2009 (FPL 2009-TN1230), the NRC received an application from FPL for two COLs for 14 proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. The USACE received a dredge and fill application from 15 FPL on June 30, 2009. In addition to the applications received by NRC and USACE, FPL 16 submitted a Site Certification Application (SCA) to the Florida Department of Environmental 17 Protection (FDEP). This application was submitted on June 30, 2009, revised on May 7, 2010 18 (FPL 2010-TN1231), and Revision 2 of the SCA was provided to FDEP on November 12, 2012 19 (FPL 2012-TN2582). The SCA process provides a certification that encompasses all licenses 20 needed for appropriate Florida State, regional, and local agencies. The certification also 21 includes any regulatory activity that would be applicable under these agencies’ regulations for 22 proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 (FDEP 2013-TN2629). A proposed Conditions of 23 Certification dated May 24, 2013, was issued to FPL authorizing construction, operation, and 24 maintenance of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and associated facilities subject to the requirements 25 listed (FDEP 2013-TN2629). Relevant information related to the SCA process was also 26 evaluated during the development of this BA.

27 To facilitate the review of the proposed action, the USACE is participating as a cooperating 28 agency with the NRC in preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed 29 units. The National Park Service is participating in the environmental review as a cooperating 30 agency by providing special expertise for the areas in and around the national parks (Biscayne 31 and Everglades National Parks). The NRC and USACE have prepared this BA to support their 32 joint consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in accordance with the 33 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 USC 1531et seq. [TN1010]). The 34 USACE permit decision will be made after issuance of the final EIS.

35 Currently there are five power plants on the Turkey Point site. Units 1 and 2 have been 36 operated as natural-gas/oil steam electric generating units. Unit 2 was converted to operate in 37 synchronous condenser mode in January 2013, and Unit 1 will be converted to operate in 38 synchronous condenser mode in October of 2016 (FPL 2013-TN2630). Synchronous 39 condenser mode provides voltage stability for the regional transmission system, but it does not 40 provide electrical generation capacity and does not produce significant quantities of waste heat. 41 Units 3 and 4 are nuclear pressurized water reactors, and Unit 5 is a natural-gas combined- 42 cycle steam-generating unit. The proposed Units 6 and 7 would be located south of Turkey

1-1 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Point Units 3 and 4, on approximately 218 ac of the Turkey Point site (FPL 2014-TN4058), and 2 would be owned and operated by FPL (FPL 2014-TN4058).

3 Pursuant to ESA Section 7(c), this BA examines the potential impacts of preconstruction (for 4 definition, see below), construction, and operation of proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 on 5 Federally listed species that potentially occur at the Turkey Point site and in nearby areas, 6 including habitats that would be crossed by proposed new transmission-line and pipeline 7 corridors needed to serve the proposed new units (16 USC 1531 et seq.) (TN1010). The list of 8 species addressed in this BA is contained in Table 1−1. The list comprises Federally protected, 9 proposed, or candidate animal species identified by the FWS Ecological Services Field Office in 10 Vero Beach during a conference call on May 30, 2012 (PNNL 2012-TN4122). The staff also 11 addressed additional protected plant and animal species that may be affected by the proposed 12 actions and also occur on the FWS Endangered Species Act Species List for Miami-Dade 13 County (FWS 2013-TN2604). The staff is aware that there is designated critical habitat for the 14 American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) on the Turkey Point site and that there is also 15 designated critical habitat for the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) near the site. 16 Sea turtles are included in Table 1-1 because they are known to occur near the Turkey Point 17 site. Because there are no known nesting areas near the Turkey Point site, they are being 18 discussed in this assessment but are included in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 19 BA provided in Appendix F-3.

20 The NRC, in a Final Rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416) (TN260), limited the definition of 21 “construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority in 10 CFR Part 51, 22 Section 4 (TN250). Many of the activities required to build a nuclear power plant are not part of 23 the NRC action to license the plant. Activities associated with constructing the plant that are not 24 within the purview of the NRC action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” 25 Preconstruction activities include clearing and grading, excavating, erecting support buildings 26 and transmission lines, and other associated activities that lack a nexus to radiological safety. 27 Preconstruction also includes reclaimed water and potable water pipeline construction. These 28 preconstruction activities may take place before the application for a COL is submitted, during 29 the staff’s review of a COL application, or after a COL is granted. Although preconstruction 30 activities are outside the NRC’s regulatory authority, many of them are within the regulatory 31 authority of local, State, or other Federal agencies including the USACE. Because this is a joint 32 BA for both the NRC and USACE, the distinction between construction and preconstruction 33 activities is not carried forward in this BA; both are jointly discussed and are referred to as 34 “construction.” A permit would be required from USACE for any construction, preconstruction, 35 or earth-moving activities located in waters of the United States. Excavation of fill from existing 36 commercially owned rock mines is not considered preconstruction because it would be 37 permitted as a separate action and is not considered a source of potential impact within this BA.

1-2 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Table 1-1. Federally Listed Species Under the Jurisdiction of the FWS Known or 2 Expected to Occur on or in the Vicinity of the Turkey Point Site or along 3 Routes for Associated Transmission-Line Corridors, Pipeline Corridors, and 4 Other Offsite Facilities

Federal Critical Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Mammals Eumops floridanus Florida bonneted bat Endangered Puma concolor coryi Florida panther Endangered Trichechus manatus latirostris Florida manatee Endangered Birds Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis Cape Sable seaside Endangered sparrow Calidris canutus rufa Rufa red knot Threatened Charadrius melodus Piping plover Threatened Mycteria americana Wood stork Threatened Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Everglade snail kite Endangered Yes Sterna dougallii dougallii Roseate tern Threatened Reptiles Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Threatened SOA(a) Crocodylus acutus American crocodile Threatened Yes Drymarchon couperi Eastern indigo snake Threatened Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle(b) Endangered Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle(b) Endangered Chelonia mydas Green turtle(b) Endangered Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle(b) Threatened Lepidochelys kempi Kemp’s ridley sea turtle(b) Endangered Insects Anaea troglodyte floridalis Florida leafwing butterfly Endangered Yes Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri Miami blue butterfly Endangered Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus Schaus swallowtail butterfly Endangered Strymon acis bartrami Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak Endangered Yes butterfly Plants Amorpha crenulata Crenulate lead-plant Endangered Argythamnia blodgettii Blodgett’s silverbush Candidate Brickellia mosieri Florida brickell-bush Endangered Yes Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea Deltoid spurge Endangered Chamaesyce deltoidea spp. pinetorum Pineland sandmat Candidate Chamaesyce garberi Garber's spurge Threatened Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. Okeechobee gourd Endangered okeechobeensis

1-3 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Table 1-1. (contd)

Federal Critical Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Dalea carthagenensis Florida prairie-clover Candidate Digitaria pauciflora Florida pineland crabgrass Candidate Galactia smallii Small's milkpea Endangered Jacquemontia reclinata Beach jacquemontia Endangered Linum arenicola Sand flax Candidate Linum carteri var. carteri Carter’s small-flowered flax Endangered Yes Polygala smallii Tiny polygala Endangered Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. Everglades bully Candidate austrofloridense Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum Florida bristle fern Candidate (a) Considered threatened due to its similarity of appearance (SOA) to the American crocodile. This species does not occur on the Turkey Point site and is not discussed further in this BA. (b) May occur near the Turkey Point site, but no documented nesting beaches near the facility. Discussion of potential impacts is provided in the NMFS BA.

1-4 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 2.0 Turkey Point Site Description

2 The Turkey Point site is situated on the southeastern coast of Florida in unincorporated 3 southeastern Miami-Dade County (Figure 2-1). The site borders Biscayne Bay and Card Sound 4 and is approximately 25 mi south of Miami. Homestead and Florida City are the closest 5 incorporated communities. Florida City is approximately 8 mi west of the site, and the municipal 6 limits of Homestead are approximately 4.5 mi west of the site. The Turkey Point site 7 encompasses approximately 9,400 ac of land, including the five power-generation units 8 described previously. The plant area for the proposed Units 6 and 7 is a 218 ac parcel south of 9 the existing units that is surrounded by man-made cooling canals (Figure 2-2). Two 10 Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactors, Units 6 and 7, 11 each with an electrical output of 1,000 MW(e) (3,415 MW(t)) are proposed.

12 The facilities associated with the construction and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 and the 13 ecological resources on the Turkey Point site and in the associated transmission-line and 14 pipeline corridors are described in the following sections.

15 2.1 Proposed Facilities

16 Systems that have the potential to affect listed species include power generation, cooling, and 17 electricity transmission. Power-generation facilities would be located onsite, while cooling and 18 transmission facilities would be located both onsite and offsite. The proposed cooling system 19 would include onsite cooling towers, radial well intakes, deep-injection well facilities, a reclaimed 20 water treatment facility (RWTF), and a reclaimed water pipeline that connects the RWTF to a 21 37 ac makeup-water reservoir located on the of Units 6 and 7 site. The reclaimed water pipeline 22 would be both onsite and offsite. To support construction activities, the equipment barge- 23 unloading area located at the northeastern portion of the Turkey Point site would need to be 24 expanded. As described in the Environmental Report (ER, FPL 2014-TN4058), this area would 25 be expanded to a total area of approximately 0.75 ac, which would require the dredging of 26 approximately 0.1 ac in the turning basin. FPL has not indicated in ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014- 27 TN4058) that dredging of the entrance channel or intercoastal waterway would be required to 28 support construction activities. If dredging in these areas is required, the review team assumes 29 a dredging permit would be obtained from USACE. New transmission lines would also be 30 erected onsite and extend offsite to existing area substations. Additional offsite facilities that 31 would be required for the construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 include commercially 32 owned rock mines and a potable water pipeline.

33 The new reactor units, including cooling towers, a makeup-water reservoir, a new substation, 34 and associated facilities, including warehouses, tunnels and pipe chases, generator buildings, a 35 machine shop, sewage treatment, fire-protection pump house, an administration building, and 36 security facilities, would be built on a filled “island” enclosed by a stabilized earth perimeter wall 37 on the northern, eastern, and western sides and a reinforced concrete wall on the southern side. 38 To construct the nuclear island, an estimated 10.7 million yd3 of fill would be required to raise 39 the site to a safe elevation. The proposed Units 6 and 7 stormwater drainage system would 40 also have a major environmental interface. Areas immediately surrounding the nuclear island 41 would be contoured to move stormwater away from the buildings and into catch basins, storm

2-1 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 drains, and swales. Eventually, stormwater would be discharged into nearby canals of the 2 existing industrial wastewater facility (IWF). The RWTF would have stormwater retention ponds 3 designed to capture and retain the first inch of precipitation and associated sediment before 4 discharging water over riprap aprons into the surrounding wetlands. Additional supporting 5 structures would include transportation facilities, buildings, parking lots, fill-source areas, and 6 spoils disposal areas (FPL 2014-TN4058).

7 8 Figure 2-1. Turkey Point Site and 50 Mile Region

2-2 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 2 Figure 2-2. Location of Proposed Units 6 and 7 Plant Area within the Turkey Point Site

3

2-3 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 The cooling system would comprise facilities both onsite and offsite. Units 6 and 7 would use 2 closed-cycle, wet-cooling towers to dissipate waste heat from the circulating-water system that 3 would be located onsite. Each unit would have a mechanical draft cooling tower for the 4 circulating-water system and an additional smaller mechanical draft cooling tower for the 5 service-water system. The primary source of cooling water would be reclaimed water from the 6 Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD). To access this water source, a 9 mi- 7 long underground pipeline would be built to transport reclaimed water from the MDWASD South 8 District Wastewater Treatment Plant (SDWWTP) to FPL’s RWTF. The pipeline would be 9 approximately 72 in. in diameter. This pipeline would be collocated within the Clear Sky-to- 10 Davis transmission-line corridor for 6.5 mi; the remaining 2.5 mi of pipeline would require the 11 construction of a new corridor. FPL has proposed an original location and an alternative 12 location for the RWTF and both are on the Turkey Point site. A potable water pipeline 13 approximately 30 in. in diameter and 10 mi long would also be built to supply potable water to 14 the site from the MDWASD. In addition, radial collector wells (RCWs) installed under Biscayne 15 Bay would provide an alternative cooling-water source when the quantity and/or quality of 16 reclaimed water needed for the circulating-water system is not available. With regard to RCW 17 operation, FPL is limited to 60 days of RCW operation per year as specified in the State’s Final 18 Order on Certification (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). Blowdown water from the cooling 19 system would be discharged into deep-injection wells into the Boulder Zone 2,800 to 3,500 ft 20 underground. There would be no discharge of blowdown from Units 6 and 7 to the Turkey Point 21 cooling-canal system (IWF) or surrounding waterbodies regardless of the water source.

22 Spoils, termed muck, excavated from the site of the Units 6 and 7 power blocks, would be 23 deposited within three designated areas on berms within the existing IWF south of the Units 6 24 and 7 site. These designated areas have the capacity to permanently store approximately 25 2 million yd3 of material. Spoils Areas A and C would be located on the western and eastern 26 sides, respectively, of the main return canal. Spoils piles in Areas A and C would be up to 5 mi 27 long. Spoils Area B would be located along the southern edge of the IWF and would be 28 approximately 1.8 mi long. The calculated areas of Spoils Areas A, B, and C are 77, 18, and 29 116 ac, respectively. Currently, the widths of the berms along the main return canal and the 30 southern cooling canal vary from 100 ft to 220 ft wide, and their top elevation is approximately 31 6 ft above mean sea level (Zilkoski et al. 1992-TN1232). The width of the spoils piles would 32 depend upon the available width remaining between the berm access road and the far edge of 33 the berm. The final elevation of the spoils piles would be approximately 16 to 20 ft NAVD88 34 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988), or 10 to 14 ft above the current berm elevation. The 35 review staff assumes water contained in the muck would drain primarily into the IWF; the spoil 36 pile at the southern end of the site may dewater into Card Sound.

37 Power produced by proposed Units 6 and 7 would be distributed by two new 500 kV 38 transmission lines and three new 230 kV transmission lines contained within two major corridors 39 —the East corridor and the West corridor. About 19 mi of transmission lines within the 36 mi- 40 long East corridor would be installed within the existing corridor. Two potential routes were 41 proposed for the West corridor—the preferred and consensus routes. Each route would 42 eventually be about 89 mi long, and each route would also use 30 mi of existing transmission- 43 line corridor. A new substation, Clear Sky, is also proposed and expansion of the Turkey Point,

2-4 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Levee, Pennsuco, Davis, and Miami substations would also be necessary (Error! Reference 2 source not found.Figure 2-3).

3 4

5

6 Figure 2 3. Offsite Facilities Related to the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7

7

2-5 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 2

3 2.2 Ecological Resources Onsite

4 The Turkey Point site is on the western shore of Biscayne Bay in the Mangrove and Coastal 5 Glades physiographic province (McPherson and Halley 1996-TN98). This province occurs 6 along the southern Florida coast and is characterized as a broad band of wetlands at or near 7 sea level that is often flooded by tides or freshwater runoff (McPherson and Halley 1996-TN98). 8 The province is named for its abundance of three species of mangrove trees: black (Avicennia 9 germinans), white (Laguncularia recemosa), and red (Rhizophora mangle). Mangrove forests 10 play a key role in the ecosystems where they occur because they buffer the uplands from 11 storms, filter overland runoff, contribute significant organic material, and provide a nursery for 12 many aquatic and terrestrial animal species (USGS 2003-TN1304). The descriptions of 13 terrestrial habitats are derived from different data sources. The staff used Florida Land Use, 14 Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) maps to characterize the lands of the 15 Turkey Point site and lands within the 6 mi vicinity. The applicant characterized the habitats 16 within the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area during an ecological assessment conducted in 17 2008 (FPL 2014-TN4058).

18 Wetlands are a common landscape feature of southern Florida. The low and flat elevation, 19 proximity to Biscayne Bay, and high average rainfall result in many wetlands. Land on the 20 Turkey Point site is used primarily for electric power facilities, and facilities for existing Turkey 21 Point Units 1−5 cover almost half of the Turkey Point site. Freshwater marsh is the 22 predominant natural land cover on the site; it occupies almost 18 percent of the entire property 23 and almost 40 percent of the undeveloped land area. An additional 9 percent is mixed wetland 24 hardwoods. The IWF is an existing series of canals and berms that occupy a 2 mi by 5 mi area 25 in the southern portion of the site. Wetland spoils areas totaling about 10 ac are adjacent to 26 remnant canals and contain mangrove species as well as buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) 27 and the invasive Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) (FPL 2014-TN4058).

28 Onsite surface-water habitats include mudflats, remnant canals, channels, dwarf mangrove 29 wetlands, and areas of open water. The most dominant onsite aquatic feature is the IWF, a 30 5,900 ac canal system that is used as a closed-loop system to provide cooling water for Turkey 31 Point Units 1−4. The IWF also receives blowdown water from Turkey Point Unit 5. The IWF 32 supports a variety of aquatic species that are tolerant of subtropical, hypersaline environments, 33 including the threatened American crocodile, and a variety of fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and 34 submerged aquatic vegetation. As described later in Section 4.0, most of the IWF and all of the 35 proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area are within the designated critical habitat for the American 36 crocodile. The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), considered Federally threatened 37 because of its similarity in appearance to the American crocodile, has not been reported on 38 Turkey Point site but may occur in areas where transmission-line installation will occur. It is not 39 discussed further in this assessment, because ESA protections apply only to harvest and 40 commerce related to the species. American crocodiles may also occur in transmission-line 41 corridors, as described below, but the same ESA protections would apply. As discussed in 42 Section 4.0, critical habitat for the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) includes the 43 northern portion of Biscayne Bay, and Card Sound south of Turkey Point (FPL 2012-TN1618).

2-6 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 There is no designated critical habitat at the Turkey Point site. Areas defined by the FWS as 2 “manatee consultation areas” include coastal regions of South Florida and large inland 3 waterbodies such as Lake Okeechobee. Thus, the Turkey Point site would be included in the 4 manatee consultation area (FPL 2012-TN1618).

5 As part of the pre-application monitoring, FPL conducted surveys for listed wildlife in selected 6 locations that would be affected by the proposed actions. Field reconnaissance surveys for 7 threatened or endangered wildlife within existing and proposed new transmission-line corridors 8 as well as a proposed reclaimed water pipeline corridor consisted of a single vehicular driving 9 survey during 2008 along the corridors (FPL 2011-TN94). Only one Everglade snail kite 10 (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) was observed by FPL contractors performing avian surveys 11 along the West transmission-line corridor along the preferred route where it diverges from the 12 consensus route just south of US Highway 41. Avian surveys were also conducted at selected 13 locations on the Turkey Point site over a 2-day span during June 2009. Areas searched include 14 the IWF, the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area, two mangrove habitats immediately north of the 15 proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area, the RCW site, and the proposed access road location west 16 of the IWF. Thirty-nine bird species were observed, including many shorebirds and wading 17 birds. The common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) was the most abundant, followed by white 18 ibis (Eudocimus albus) and least tern (Sternula antillarum). Reptile and amphibian surveys 19 were conducted by placing a total of 20 cover boards within the ditch beside Palm Drive, which 20 parallels the Florida City Canal and is approximately 0.75 mi north of the IWF, in the mangroves 21 also surveyed for birds, and in mangrove habitat between the IWF and Biscayne Bay. Traps, 22 dip nets, and pedestrian surveys were also conducted for reptiles and amphibians (FPL 2011- 23 TN94). Reptiles observed included snakes, lizards, and a turtle. Six snakes were observed 24 including three mangrove salt marsh snakes (Nerodia clarkia compressicuda), a Florida water 25 snake (Nerodia fasciata pictiventris), a black racer (Coluber constrictor priapus), and a rough 26 green snake (Opheodrys aestivus). Cuban brown anoles (Anolis sangrei), green iguanas 27 (Iguana iguana), Mediterranean geckos (Hemidactylus turcicus), and Florida softshell turtles 28 (Apalone ferox) were also observed. Four amphibian species were also observed: the 29 greenhouse frog (Eleutherodactylus planirostris), southern toad (Bufo terrestris), southern 30 leopard frog (Rana utricularia), and eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis). 31 Small mammal surveys were conducted within the Units 6 and 7 plant area, along the IWF 32 central return canal, at the northeast corner of the IWF, along the Florida City Canal 33 approximately 0.75 mi north of the IWF, and at the proposed southern spoils deposition area. 34 Baited live traps were set 60−80 ft apart and monitored for three consecutive nights. Cotton rats 35 (Sigmodon hispidus) and black rats (Rattus rattus) were captured. Mammal occurrence and 36 evidence of occurrence were also noted during the various field survey efforts and indicated 37 raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), marsh rabbit (Silvilagus palustris), and 38 white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are present. No bats were observed during a single 39 2-hour evening bat survey conducted between mangroves and existing Turkey Point facilities.

40 A survey of fish species was also conducted in June 2009 at the plant site in areas that would 41 be affected by the construction of the proposed new units (Figure 2-3). Fish collection results 42 showed the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) − the dominant species that occurred 43 in seven of the eight sampling stations − represented 63 percent of the specimens collected. 44 Sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna) and goldspotted killifish (Floridichthys carpio) were present at

2-7 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 the majority of the sampling stations and represented 20.8 percent and 9.9 percent, 2 respectively, of the specimens collected. The remaining species that occurred were less 3 common and collectively represented about 6 percent of the total. All fish collected represented 4 hardy species common to South Florida; no rare, unusual, sensitive, or protected species 5 were collected (FPL 2009-TN201).

6 7 Figure 2-3. 2009 Fish Sampling Locations on the Turkey Point Site (FPL 2009-TN201)

2-8 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 2.3 Ecological Resources Offsite

2 Ecological resources are also found offsite within corridors proposed for building and operating 3 transmission lines, the reclaimed water pipeline, and the potable water pipeline, and in 4 nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay and Card Sound that border the plant.

5 2.3.1 Biscayne Bay and Card Sound

6 Aquatic areas adjacent to the Turkey Point site include nearshore portions of Biscayne Bay and 7 Card Sound, which is part of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The endangered 8 Florida manatee has been observed in the barge-turning basin at the northern edge of the 9 Turkey Point site and in nearby streams and canals, but has not been observed in the IWF 10 because these waters are not accessible to manatees. Designated critical habitat for the 11 manatee includes coastal areas to the north and south of the Turkey Point site, but there is no 12 designated critical habitat on or adjacent to the Turkey Point site.

13 2.3.2 Transmission-Line Corridors

14 FPL has indicated that new 500 kV and 230 kV transmission lines are needed to connect the 15 Clear Sky substation located on Turkey Point site with other existing FPL substations in Miami- 16 Dade County. Approximately 89 mi of corridors are being proposed; approximately 52 mi of the 17 corridor would be associated with either of the two West corridor routes, and approximately 18 36 mi would be associated with the East corridor.

19 Pine rockland habitat is a savannah-like forest that occurs on limestone outcrops of the Miami 20 Rock Ridge, which supports diverse shrub and herb layers (FWS 1999-TN136). Many Federally 21 listed plants and wildlife are found in pine rockland, including crenulate lead-plant (Amorpha 22 herbacea var. crenulata), deltoid spurge (Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. adhaerens), Garber’s 23 spurge (Chamaesyce garberi), Small’s milkpea (Galactia smallii), tiny polygala (Polygala 24 smallii), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), and the Florida panther (Puma concolor 25 coryi). Because pine rocklands occur at relatively high elevations in the southern Florida 26 landscape, they are also ideal for urbanization and rural development, which have resulted in 27 extensive habitat loss and fragmentation. On the Florida peninsula, pine rockland fragments 28 persist in Miami-Dade County from Florida City north to Southwest 32nd Street, northern 29 Monroe County, and southeast Collier County (FWS 1999-TN136). Remnant pine rocklands lie 30 along the East corridor between the Clear Sky and Davis substations and within the first leg of 31 the West corridor that spans between the Clear Sky and Levee substations. Botanical surveys 32 were conducted within proposed transmission-line corridors during September 2008 and 33 February 2009 to determine the presence, distribution, and abundance of rare plant taxa. 34 Pedestrian surveys were conducted in areas where rare plants were most likely to occur 35 (FPL 2009-TN657). A single plant species currently listed as Federally endangered, the Florida 36 brickell-bush (Brikellia mosieri) was observed. Several endemic plant species associated with 37 pine rocklands were observed during ground surveys conducted along proposed transmission- 38 line corridors, including two candidate species. Another candidate species is suspected to 39 occur within proposed transmission-line corridors. Lands designated as critical habitat also 40 exist within, adjacent to, or nearby proposed transmission-line corridors.

2-9 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Aquatic species that could potentially be found in waterbodies adjacent to transmission lines 2 include the Florida manatee and the American alligator. As discussed above, the alligator is 3 listed because of its similarity of appearance to the American crocodile. Because ESA 4 protection for this species applies to harvest and commerce, it is not discussed further in this 5 assessment.

6 2.3.3 Reclaimed Water Pipeline Corridor

7 As described above, a buried reclaimed water pipeline would be built within a 9 mi-long corridor. 8 Most of the proposed reclaimed water pipeline corridor has been previously disturbed or 9 developed. Reconnaissance-level surveys to determine the presence or absence of Federally 10 threatened or endangered animals were conducted within the reclaimed water pipeline corridor 11 during 2008 (FPL 2011-TN94). Surveys consisted of vehicular surveys conducted at selected 12 locations. However, as stated above, selected areas within the transmission-line corridor have 13 been surveyed for plants, which could account for areas within the 6.5 mi-long pipeline corridor 14 section that coincides with the transmission-line corridor.

15 2.3.4 Potable Water Pipeline Corridor

16 A buried pipeline to provide potable water to the Turkey Point site from the MDWASD would be 17 installed to feed the demineralized water system and provide water for fire protection and other 18 miscellaneous water uses (FPL 2014-TN4058). The total length of the pipeline would be 19 approximately 10 mi, of which 8 mi would be offsite. Surveys to determine the presence or 20 absence of Federally threatened or endangered species have not been conducted within the 21 potable water pipeline corridor.

2-10 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 3.0 Proposed Federal Action

2 The proposed NRC Federal action is the issuance, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52 3 (TN251), of two COLs authorizing the construction and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 at 4 FPL’s Turkey Point site. The proposed USACE Federal action is issuance of a Department of 5 the Army permit, pursuant to CWA Section 404 (33 USC 1344 et seq.) (TN1019), Section 10 of 6 the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403 et seq.) (TN660) authorizing work in waters of 7 the United States, and 33 USC 408 (TN660) to alter an existing Federal project.

8 Prerequisites for construction activities include, but are not limited to, documentation of existing 9 site conditions within the Turkey Point site and acquisition of the necessary permits (e.g., COL, 10 local building permits, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit [40 CFR 122 11 (TN2769); 33 USC 1251 et seq. (TN662); 66 FR 65256 (TN243)], a CWA Section 404 permit, a 12 General Stormwater Permit, and other State and local permits). After these prerequisites are 13 met, planned construction activities could proceed and would include all or some of the activities 14 pursuant to 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) (TN249). After construction, planned operation of the new 15 reactors would commence in compliance with 10 CFR 50.52 (TN249). No separate NRC 16 operating license would be required.

17 The USACE regulatory program was originally conducted pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors 18 Acts of 1890 (superseded) and 1899 (33 USC 403 et seq.) (TN660). Various sections establish 19 permit requirements to prevent unauthorized obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the 20 United States, and the most frequently exercised USACE authority is contained in Section 10 21 (33 USC 403 et seq.) (TN660), which covers construction, excavation, or deposition of materials 22 in, over, or under such waters, or any work that would affect the course, location, condition, or 23 capacity of those waters. In 1972 and in 1977, amendments to the Federal Water Pollution 24 Control Act (FWPCA) as the CWA, added “Section 404” authority (33 USC 1344 et seq.) 25 (TN1019) and (33 USC 1251 et seq.) (TN662) authorizing the USACE to issue permits for the 26 discharge of material into waters of the United States at specified disposal sites. Selection of 27 such sites must be in accordance with guidelines developed by the U.S. Environmental 28 Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with the Department of the Army. These guidelines are 29 known as the 404(b)(1) Guidelines for the specification of disposal sites for dredged and fill 30 material. The discharge of all other pollutants into waters of the United States is regulated to 31 the EPA under Section 402 of the CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq.) (TN662). The EPA has 32 delegated this regulatory authority to the State of Florida.

33 Based on their habitat affinities and life history characteristics, some protected terrestrial and 34 aquatic species could be affected by construction and operation activities associated with 35 Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, as indicated below: 36 • Terrestrial, including wetlands 37 – Construction activities 38 ○ Clearing, grading, and other site-preparation and construction activities 39 ○ Mining, transporting and emplacing site fill

3-1 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 ○ Installing pipeline from Miami to the site to convey reclaimed water 2 ○ Installing pipeline from the Miami-Dade County Water Source Facility to the site to 3 convey potable water 4 ○ Clearing for expansion of existing transmission-line corridors or temporary 5 workspaces 6 ○ Erecting transmission-line towers – stringing conductors 7 ○ Clearing for new transmission-line and pipeline corridors 8 ○ Installing new or upgraded transmission lines and pipelines 9 ○ Vehicle operation 10 ○ Increased human activity 11 – Operation 12 ○ Vegetation control in transmission-line and pipeline corridors 13 ○ Transmission-line and pipeline repairs or upgrades 14 • Aquatic 15 – Construction activities 16 ○ Terrestrial habitat disturbance, including wetlands and shorelines, on and in the 17 vicinity of the site, and within/along existing and new transmission-line and pipeline 18 corridors where such activities could affect waterbodies (e.g., via 19 erosion/sedimentation) 20 ○ Changes in water quality due to changes in terrestrial habitats 21 ○ Aquatic habitat disturbance (e.g., dredging at the equipment barge-unloading area, 22 stream or waterbody crossings, or placement of facilities in aquatic habitats) 23 ○ Radial collector well construction 24 ○ Barge-unloading facility upgrades 25 ○ Barge operation during transportation of construction materials and equipment to the 26 site 27 – Operation 28 ○ Impacts related to the radial well cooling-water intake 29 ○ Management of transmission-line rights-of-way 30 ○ Introduction of contaminants (due to biocide and other water treatments, drift, 31 cooling-tower blowdown, etc.) 32 ○ Periodic dredging to maintain the barge-unloading facility 33 ○ Barge operation for routine operation-related deliveries.

3-2 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 3.1 Impacts from Construction

2 Construction activities would affect the Turkey Point site, transmission-line corridors, the RWTF 3 and pipeline corridor, and the potable water pipeline corridor.

4 3.1.1 Turkey Point Site

5 Land clearing, grubbing, grading, and placement of fill would occur on approximately 591 ac of 6 the Turkey Point site (FPL 2014-TN4058). Excluding cover classes supporting existing 7 development, approximately 577 ac of intact terrestrial habitat would be lost. Approximately 8 328 ac of wetlands on the Turkey Point site would be permanently altered by filling and grading, 9 clearing of vegetation, dewatering, erosion, sedimentation, and other alterations of the existing 10 hydrology such as road construction and culvert installation. The power blocks, makeup-water 11 reservoir, switchyard, and related infrastructure associated with proposed Units 6 and 7 would 12 occupy approximately 218 ac at the northeast edge of the existing IWF (FPL 2014-TN4058). 13 This area, designated as the Units 6 and 7 plant area, has been characterized as a sparsely 14 vegetated hypersaline mudflat that is partially buffered from tidal influence by the IWF. Wetland 15 and aquatic habitats within the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area and adjacent laydown areas 16 total approximately 270 ac and include the following land-cover classes: 17 • 187.5 ac of mudflats 18 • 25 ac of remnant and active canals 19 • 17 ac of dwarf mangroves 20 • 16 ac of open-water habitat 21 • 12 ac of mangrove heads 22 • 10 ac of wetland spoils areas.

23 Almost 40 percent of the affected land area has been filled during previous land-development 24 activities. Another 30 percent of the affected land, including the entire Units 6 and 7 plant area, 25 is classified as non-vegetated wetland (FPL 2014-TN4058).

26 Construction-related impacts may affect the two aquatic and six terrestrial Federally listed 27 species under the jurisdiction of the FWS included in this review: the American crocodile (a 28 semi-aquatic species that is also partially terrestrial) and the Florida manatee, the Florida 29 panther, the wood stork, Everglades snail kite, Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak, Florida brickell-bush, 30 and Carter’s small-flowered flax. Sea turtles may also be present in the waters of Biscayne Bay 31 near Turkey Point. The FWS and NMFS share Federal jurisdiction for these species; the FWS 32 is the lead agency for nesting beaches or turtles found on land, and the NMFS is the lead 33 agency for the marine environment. Because there are no known nesting beaches for any sea 34 turtle species near Turkey Point, and turtle strandings on Turkey Point site are rare, potential 35 impacts on sea turtles are not discussed in this BA, but are addressed in the BA prepared for 36 NMFS, which addresses impacts on the marine environment and is provided in NRC EIS, 37 NUREG-2176 Appendix F-3.

3-3 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Potential impacts on American crocodile include the permanent loss of approximately 270 ac of 2 designated critical habitat to accommodate proposed Units 6 and 7 and the associated 3 infrastructure, and adverse effects to approximately 211 ac of habitat related to the relocation of 4 material not suitable for reuse (assumed to be approximately 1.8 million yd3 of muck) from the 5 power block area to three designated disposal areas along the berms of the IWF, resulting in an 6 average muck layer approximately 10 ft deep (Figure 3-1). There is also concern that the 7 disturbance and relocation of the muck from the plant site to the cooling-canal berms may 8 adversely affect the water quality of the IWF and possibly Card Sound as the muck dewaters. 9 Possible effects from construction-related stormwater effluent discharge into the IWF and 10 effects from noise, light, vibration, increased human presence, and vehicular and heavy 11 equipment traffic may also affect crocodiles. In addition, sheet pile installation around the 12 perimeter of the plant site will create percussive sound and vibration that may affect crocodiles. 13 This activity is expected to last 2 weeks (FPL 2014-TN3717). As described in ER Revision 6, 14 (FPL 2014-TN4058) stormwater runoff from the site would be discharged into the IWF. This 15 discharge would include stormwater and dewatering constituents and was estimated to occur at 16 a maximum rate of 1,200 gpm (1.73 Mgd) for a period of 1 year. As discussed in NRC EIS, 17 NUREG-2176 Section 3.3.1.1, stormwater runoff during building activities is to be directed 18 toward the IWF, or to surrounding areas in the case of the RWTF, so that no runoff associated 19 with building activities would be directly discharged to Biscayne Bay.

20 To support construction activities, the equipment barge-unloading area located at the 21 northeastern portion of the Turkey Point site would need to be expanded. As described in the 22 ER (FPL 2014-TN4058), this area would be expanded to a total area of approximately 0.75 ac, 23 which would require the dredging of approximately 0.1 ac in the turning basin. As reported in 24 the ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058), a survey of the area showed sparse growth of 25 seagrasses and algae within the turning basin. FPL expects dredging to result in temporary 26 impacts on water quality because of increased turbidity, and would use turbidity curtains, silt 27 screens, or similar technology to minimize impacts (FPL 2010-TN272). Material dredged from 28 the turning basin would be placed in designated spoils areas located on existing berms within 29 the IWF. FPL would submit an application to USACE for a permit to dredge under the CWA, 30 Section 404(b)(1) “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material” (40 31 CFR 230) (TN427), as described in ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058). FPL did not indicate in 32 ER Revision 6 that dredging of the entrance channel or intercoastal waterway would be required 33 to support construction activities. If dredging in these areas is required, the review team 34 assumes a dredging permit would be obtained from USACE, as described above.

35 Potential construction-related impacts on the Florida manatee in the vicinity of the barge- 36 unloading area will include temporary increases in water turbidity during dredging and barge 37 deliveries, construction noise and percussive sound emissions related to nearshore activities 38 and sheet pile installation, and a potential for fatal or non-fatal vessel strikes with barges and 39 tugs delivering heavy equipment and supplies to the site. Adverse effects on manatee critical 40 habitat related to construction activities will not occur because there is no designated critical 41 habitat near the existing equipment barge-unloading facility. In addition to the above activities, 42 noise, light, vibration, and temporary, localized changes to water turbidity related to the 43 construction of the RCW system have the potential to affect Florida manatee. Stormwater and

3-4 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 construction-related runoff that is directed to the IWF during RCW construction may result in 2 short-term turbidity increases and changes to water quality.

3 4 Figure 3-1. Location of Muck Spoils Areas within the IWF (Source FPL 2014-TN4058)

3-5 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 3.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors

2 The clearing, grubbing, and grading of transmission-line corridors would disturb additional 3 terrestrial habitat. Development of the East corridor would disturb approximately 1,635 ac of 4 land. More than 1,000 ac of this footprint are within previously developed land-cover classes, 5 and an additional 428 ac is agricultural land. Approximately 100 ac of upland habitat and 6 approximately 106 ac of wetlands would also be converted to transmission-line corridor. A 7 small amount (0.03 ac) of pine flatwoods, the land-cover class that would include pine rockland, 8 is also within this footprint between the Clear Sky and Davis substations.

9 Two corridors are proposed to contain the west transmission circuits between the Clear Sky and 10 Pennsuco substations. The first leg of both corridors is the virtually the same, and the corridors 11 diverge about where the first leg ends. The route referred to as the “West Preferred corridor” 12 occupies approximately 3,280 ac of land. Wetlands of various types occupy almost 1,855 ac of 13 this corridor and upland habitats approximately 210 ac. Previously developed and agricultural 14 land-cover classes occupy an additional 1,216 ac. Wet prairie, the land-cover class that would 15 include marl prairie, occupies approximately 86 ac of this corridor and is present at various 16 amounts on each transmission-line segment, half of which (42 ac) occur within the preferred 17 second leg of this corridor. The second and third legs of the “West consensus corridor” occupy 18 approximately 3,033 ac in addition to the first leg that is concurrent with the West Preferred 19 corridor. The majority (2,652 ac) of this route is also wetlands of various types. Upland habitat 20 only accounts for about 381 ac.

21 Wetland quality in both West corridors is generally very high. Land disturbance during erection 22 of the transmission tower and stringing of conductors would largely depend on where the tower 23 pads and access roads are sited. Specific areas of potential impact from any of the routes are 24 not currently available.

25 3.1.3 Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant and Pipeline Corridor

26 The RWTF would require approximately 44 ac of land. Construction of the treatment plant at 27 the original location would permanently alter sawgrass marsh and dwarf mangrove habitats. 28 Land cover at the alternate location is mostly Australian pine established on upland spoil, 29 canals, and ditches with some sawgrass marsh, dwarf mangroves, and Australian pine wetlands 30 (FPL 2014-TN4058). The reclaimed water pipeline corridor would be 75 ft wide by 9 mi long. 31 Its corridor would be located within or adjacent to existing infrastructure development including a 32 power transmission-line corridor, roadways, and canals. Land cover within the proposed 33 corridor that has not been previously developed includes mangrove, freshwater marsh, tree 34 nurseries, Brazilian pepper, exotic wetland hardwoods, and mixed hardwood wetlands. 35 Although the exact location of the pipeline has not been determined within the corridor, burying 36 the reclaimed water pipeline is expected to temporarily disturb approximately 327 ac of the 37 1,876 ac corridor.

38 3.1.4 Potable Water Pipeline Corridor

39 Although the disturbance footprint of the potable water pipeline would be some smaller portion 40 of the entire pipeline corridor, this portion has not been defined. Therefore, for the purposes of

3-6 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 this BA, it is assumed the entire corridor would be disturbed. More than 184 ac of wetlands 2 would be disturbed. Almost 70 ac of agriculture, 60 ac of previously developed lands, and 3 approximately 13 ac of uplands would also be disturbed within this corridor.

4 3.2 Impacts from Operation

5 Operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 would affect the Turkey Point site and transmission-line 6 corridors.

7 3.2.1 Turkey Point Site

8 Specific impacts and mitigation activities related to listed species are discussed below.

9 Increase in Vehicular Traffic

10 Operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 would require additional personnel to commute to and from 11 the site. Increased traffic on local roadways may increase the risk of wildlife mortality, including 12 the mortality of American crocodiles caused by collision with vehicles. FPL determined the total 13 number of operations workers for the proposed project would be 805. This total would be 14 divided into multiple shifts, and increased traffic volume would occur before and after each 15 operational shift, as well as during periodic plant outages.

16 Impacts Related to the Cooling System

17 Cooling systems generally represent the largest interface between a nuclear plant and the 18 environment. Cooling water is typically obtained from a surface-water source, and heat is 19 normally rejected primarily either to the receiving waterbody or to the atmosphere. Liquid 20 effluents are typically discharged to the aquatic environment. For proposed Turkey Point Units 21 6 and 7, FPL’s primary source of cooling water would be reclaimed water from the MDWASD. 22 However, because reclaimed water supply can vary in quantity and quality, the applicant has 23 proposed a secondary source that would be wholly redundant; cooling water would be saltwater 24 extracted from Biscayne Bay subsurface sediment through RCWs constructed on the Turkey 25 Point peninsula, east of the existing units (Figure 2−2). FPL is limited to 60 days of RCW 26 operation per year as specified in the State’s Final Order on Certification (State of Florida 2014- 27 TN3637).

28 As described in Section 3.2 of the NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 proposed Units 6 and 7 would use 29 closed-cycle wet-cooling towers to dissipate heat. The staff assessed the impacts on terrestrial 30 and aquatic habitats and species from operation of proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 from 31 cooling-system operations. With respect to aquatic resources, the proposed Turkey Point 32 cooling system would have fewer direct impacts on aquatic communities than would be the case 33 using a more conventional cooling system. Use of reclaimed water and the infrequent use of 34 the radial wells that extract water from under Biscayne Bay are unlikely to result in any 35 detectable mortality from impingement or entrainment. However the staff investigated the effect 36 of long-term use of the radial well field on nearshore salinity. The review team also examined 37 the potential for cooling-tower drift to affect the terrestrial and aquatic resources.

3-7 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 As described in Section 3.4 2 of the NRC EIS, NUREG-3276 the majority of excess heat in the 2 cooling water in the circulating- and service-water systems would be transferred to the 3 atmosphere by evaporative cooling in the cooling towers. The circulating-water system 4 removes excess heat from the main station condensers and the service-water system removes 5 heat from the balance of the plant. The circulating-water system flow and heat rejection rates 6 compared to the service-water system would be about 44 times larger respectively. To maintain 7 acceptable water quality in the cooling systems a portion of the cooling water is continually 8 discharged. Normally this thermal discharge, called blowdown, is discharged to a receiving 9 body of water. In the case of the proposed Turkey Point units, however, the blowdown would be 10 discharged into the Boulder Zone, a confined hypersaline aquifer some 3,000 ft below the 11 surface using a series of deep-injection wells. Therefore there will be no discharge to surface 12 waters from the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 circulating- or service-water systems. In addition to 13 evaporative losses from operation of the cooling towers, and blowdown to the Boulder Zone, a 14 small percentage of water would be lost to the atmosphere from the cooling tower in the form of 15 water droplets called cooling-tower drift (or just drift). This liquid water contains the same 16 concentration of salts and chemicals found in the circulating-water system. The concentration 17 of these salts and chemicals in the circulating-water systems normally higher than the 18 concentration of these salts and chemicals in the source water for the cooling system because 19 of evaporation of water from the cooling towers increases the concentration of these 20 compounds. For Turkey Point the source waterbody is either the reclaimed water from Miami- 21 Dade or from the radial wells withdrawing water from Biscayne Bay. Depending on the quality 22 of the water, the concentration of salts and chemicals in the circulating-water system could be 23 several times the concentration in the source waterbody. Water lost to evaporation and drift is 24 considered consumptive use because the water is not available for reuse. The circulating-water 25 system normal and maximum evaporation rates would both be 28,800 gpm. The service-water 26 system normal and maximum evaporation rates would be 366 and 1,248 gpm, respectively. 27 The combined drift rates for both units would be 7 gpm for the circulating-water system and 1 28 gpm for the service-water system (FPL 2014-TN4058). These evaporation and drift rates are 29 independent of the makeup-water source, meaning consumptive losses are similar whether 30 reclaimed water or saltwater is used for cooling. The operation of the cooling system would 31 thus result in local deposition of dissolved solids contained in the drift (commonly referred to as 32 salt deposition), and potentially other chemicals or constituents in the source water that are not 33 removed by water pretreatment processes. Airborne salt deposition during the use of water 34 from the radial well field at rates that could affect the local ecology is expected to only occur 35 very near the cooling towers and decrease rapidly with distance. Much of the area near the 36 cooling towers where salt deposition would occur is already considered hypersaline due to 37 operation of the IWF and it is not expected to noticeably affect local ecology .

38 Use of reclaimed water as coolant may also result in deposition of chemical contaminants 39 contained in the water. However, a previous evaluation of organic compounds and chemicals of 40 emerging concern (CECs) in Miami-Dade wastewater and concentrations shows nearly all 41 compounds (65 organic elements, 24 pharmaceuticals, 37 antibiotics, 3 hormones) detected in 42 Miami-Dade wastewater effluent that was treated conventionally were below published water- 43 quality or toxicological benchmarks (Lietz and Meyer 2006-TN1005).

3-8 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 The review team analyzed the potential for impacts of cooling-tower chemical and salt 2 deposition on Federally threatened and endangered species. To evaluate the potential effects 3 of cooling-tower deposition on the aquatic resources of the IWF and surrounding waterbodies, 4 the review team first performed a screening-level assessment to identify chemicals and 5 constituents likely to occur at ecologically relevant concentrations in both Biscayne Bay 6 seawater obtained from the RCW system and reclaimed water from the MDWASD. This 7 assessment generally followed the guidance provided by the National Research Council (1983- 8 TN2573).

9 Four general categories of chemical constituents were included in the initial screening-level 10 assessment: general water chemistry parameters (e.g., total dissolved solids [TDS]), metals 11 (e.g., copper), organic compounds (e.g., 1,4-dichlorobenzene, phenanthrene), and CECs 12 commonly found in pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and other consumer products. 13 Likely concentrations in reclaimed wastewater and Biscayne Bay seawater were obtained from 14 technical data provided by FPL (2012-TN263), a study by Lietz and Meyer (2006-TN1005) of 15 CECs from the Miami-Dade SDWWTP, and information available from the MDWASD describing 16 the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Rehydration Pilot Project (Miami-Dade County 2011- 17 TN1006). Detected concentrations of general water chemistry parameters (NRC EIS, NUREG- 18 2176 Section 2.3.3.1), organic compounds, and metals were compared to existing EPA 19 freshwater and marine water-quality criteria, which are readily available for many compounds 20 and believed to be protective of aquatic life. Compounds exceeding established water-quality 21 criteria were retained in the screening-level assessment for fate-and-effects modeling. For 22 chemicals without established water-quality criteria, which includes many CECs, detected 23 concentrations in reclaimed or Biscayne Bay water were compared to toxicological benchmarks 24 available on EPA’s ECOTOX database (EPA 2012-TN1525). Chemicals present at >1/10 of a 25 benchmark were retained in the screen and were included in fate-and-effects modeling, as 26 described in NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Section 5.3.2.

27 The review team independently estimated drift-deposition rates with the use of circulating-water 28 system makeup or source water from both reclaimed wastewater from MDWASD and saltwater 29 withdrawn from under Biscayne Bay by the RCWs. The drift-deposition rate on the environment 30 surrounding the station is determined by the cooling-tower design drift rate during operation and 31 the TDS concentration or CEC concentration in the water in the circulating-water system. The 32 review team used the CALPUFF model to independently compute drift-deposition rates from the 33 cooling towers. Using the total drift deposition of salt computed using CALPUFF for both 34 reclaimed wastewater and Biscayne Bay marine water, the review team estimated the salt and 35 representative CEC deposition rates to the nearby environment. The review team assumed that 36 the ratio of contaminant concentration to TDS concentration was the same in the cooling-tower 37 water as it was in the makeup water supplied by Miami-Dade County to FPL adjusted for cycles 38 of concentration. This conservative approach assumes no loss of contaminants via removal at 39 FPL’s RWTF, biodegradation, or volatilization. This conservative approach provides the worst 40 case of loading via drift deposition from the cooling towers. It includes the assumption of 41 increased concentration with cycles of concentration. Table 3-1 presents the review team’s 42 estimated drift-deposition rates for these compounds for three separate areas: the cooling 43 canals of the IWF, adjacent areas west of the IWF, and Biscayne Bay. Compounds included in 44 the analysis included nine CECs and one metal. Constituents identified in Biscayne Bay

3-9 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 seawater at levels above EPA criteria included only chlorides and sulfides. Areas west of the 2 IWF were examined only for deposition rate and are considered in terrestrial ecology sections 3 (NRCEIS, NUREG-2176 Section 5.3.1). The review team also evaluated the potential of drift- 4 related effects on the terrestrial and aquatic resources of the Everglades National Park. 5 Because the Everglades National Park is located approximately 15 mi west of the Turkey Point 6 site the staff concluded that the deposition rates of chemical contaminants and salt would be 7 orders of magnitude below those experienced by the IWF and therefore would have no effect on 8 the biota in Everglades National Park.

9 Based on atmospheric modeling of the cooling-tower plume described above, the majority of the 10 deposition would occur south and west of the Turkey Point site, and the highest deposition rates 11 would occur in the IWF (Table 3-1). Because American crocodiles reside and reproduce in the 12 IWF the staff examined the potential for adverse effects on the IWF crocodile population from 13 chronic exposure to chemical and salt deposition. Because cooling-tower deposition is unlikely 14 to extend into areas frequented by Florida manatee, adverse effects on this species from 15 proposed Units 6 and 7 cooling-system operations are not anticipated and are not discussed 16 further in this assessment of the potential effects of cooling tower drift.

17 Operation of the cooling system could also increase local fogging. Increased fogging could 18 exacerbate risk of avian mortality caused by collision with tall structures. Localized fogging is 19 expected to be most pronounced during winter nights. However, the extent of expected fogging 20 coupled with the application of industry standards to limit upward lighting to the extent 21 practicable is expected to limit increased risk to collision mortality.

22 The highest salt deposition occurs over the IWF, where it is estimated to be 0.0287 g/m2/mo 23 (0.287 kg/ha/mo). When Biscayne Bay seawater is used for cooling, salt deposition into the 24 IWF is estimated to be 0.5079 g/m2/mo (5.079 kg/ha/ mo). Using water and mass balance 25 methods (Figure 3-2), the review team calculated the equilibrium concentrations of 26 contaminants within the cooling canals from drift deposition. To compute the mass balance, the 27 review team first calculated a water balance using the cooling-canal storage information from 28 the Cooling Canal System Modeling Report (Golder 2008-TN1072) and the monthly water 29 balance information provided in the Turkey Point Plant Annual Monitoring Report for Units 3 and 30 4 Uprate Project Cooling (FPL 2011-TN1332). The water balance was repeated over a 9-year 31 period to provide inflows and outflows to the cooling canals for use in the contaminant mass 32 balance calculation over an extended period. Figure 3-3 shows the review teams computed 33 cooling-canal volumes for this period.

34 For the next step, the review team calculated the mass balance of each constituent in Table 3-1 35 using the hydrologic fluxes in the IWF to account for dilution of contaminant concentrations from 36 drift deposition. For a conservative estimate, no loss of contaminants was assumed in the 37 cooling canal from degradation or volatilization. Figure 3-4 provides an example of contaminant 38 concentrations calculated from the mass balance of 1,4-dichlorobenzene, which is an insect 39 repellent. Concentrations increase from the initial value of 0 µg/L and reach a dynamic 40 equilibrium within 1 year. The only input is from cooling-tower drift, and the primary loss is via 41 the seasonal inflows and outflows of groundwater, which produce the variation in volume shown 42 in Figure 3-2. The maximum value estimated is 0.0032 µg/L. The same calculation was made 43 for other potential contaminants deposited to the cooling canal from drift; the maximum

3-10 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 concentrations attained are listed in Table 3-2. Comparison of the contaminant concentrations 2 with detection limits indicates that all of the concentrations from this mass balance calculation 3 are below current detection limits. Other chemical constituents with concentrations that were 4 not measured in the reclaimed wastewater, but which could have similar concentrations to those 5 measured by MDWASD, would be expected to result in concentrations in the IWF as found 6 above.

7 Table 3-1. Estimated Deposition Rates for TDS and Constituent (C) Concentrations for 8 Reclaimed Wastewater and Biscayne Bay Seawater on Aquatic Resources at 9 or near the Turkey Point Site Resulting from Cooling-Tower Operation

Annual Average Drift-Deposition Rates Western Water Cooling Areas/ Biscayne Concent- Canals Model Lands Bay 2 2 2 ration Ratio (g/m − (g/m − (g/m − Constituent Description (μg/L) (C/TDS) month) month) month) Reclaimed Wastewater TDS Solids and salts 680,000(a) 1.0 0.0287 0.0146 0.0069 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Insect 1.3(a) 1.9×10-6 5.5×10-8 2.8×10-8 1.3×10-8 repellant 3 Beta-coprostanol Human 2(b) 2.9×10-6 8.4×10-7 4.3×10-8 2.0×10-8 digestion marker 4-Nonylphenol Detergent 4(b) 5.9×10-6 1.7×10-7 8.6×10-8 4.0×10-8 metabolite Acetyl-hexamethyl- Musk 4(b) 5.9×10-6 1.7×10-7 8.6×10-8 4.0×10-8 tetrahydro- compound naphthalene (AHTN) Hexahydrohexamethyl- Musk compound 0.5(b) 7.4×10-7 2.1×10-8 1.1×10-8 5.1×10-9 cyclopentabenzopyran (HHCB) Phenanthrene Polycyclic 0.6(b) 8.8×10-7 2.5×10-8 1.3×10-8 6.1×10-9 aromatic compound Warfarin Pharmaceutical 0.12(b) 1.8×10-7 2.1×10-9 2.6×10-9 1.2×10-9 17 Beta-estradiol Hormone 0.035(b) 5.1×10-8 1.5×10-9 7.5×10-10 3.5×10-10 (E2) Ciprofloxacin Antibiotic 0.4(b) 5.9×10-7 1.7×10-8 8.6×10-9 4.0×10-9 (Ofloxacin) Triclosan Antibiotic 0.2(b,c) 2.9×10-7 8.4×10-9 4.3×10-9 2.0×10-9 Copper Heavy metal 9.6(a) 1.4×10-5 4.0×10-7 2.0×10-7 9.7×10-8 Biscayne Bay TDS Solids and salt 35,800,000(a) 1.0 0.5079 0.2592 0.1292 Chloride 20,700,000(a) 5.9×10-1 2.9×10-1 1.5×10-1 7.5x10-2 Sulfide 8000(a) 2.2×10-4 1.1×10-4 5.8×10-5 2.9x10-5 (a) FPL RAI response FPL 2012-TN263. (b) Lietz and Meyer 2006-TN1005. (c) Contaminant with lowest environmental effect concentration. 10 11

3-11 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 2 Figure 3-2. Schematic of Hydrologic and Mass Exchange Processes Considered in 3 Estimating the Effects of Drift Deposition on the Cooling Canals (IWF), Model 4 Lands, and Biscayne Bay

5 6 Figure 3-3. Cooling-Canal Volumes Calculated by the Review Team from Ecology 7 (FPL 2011-TN1332) Flux Measurements and Golder Associates, Inc. 8 (Golder 2008-TN1072) Volumes and Areas. The fluxes are repeated for each 9 year to provide a longer period for use in contaminant mass balance 10 calculations.

3-12 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 2 Figure 3-4. Concentrations of 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Based on Annual Average Drift Flux 3 from the Cooling Towers over a 4-Year Period. Hydrologic conditions are 4 those used to estimate the cooling-canal volumes shown in EIS Figure 5-2.

5 When reclaimed water is used for cooling, based on the above analyses deposition of chemicals 6 from the use of reclaimed water is not expected to alter the local ecology. Given its distance 7 from the Turkey Point site, no depositional effects on Everglades National Park are expected, as 8 described in Section 5. The significance of the CEC and TDS deposition rates and the resulting 9 concentrations presented in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 on aquatic resources within the deposition 10 plume footprint (including the IWF and surrounding waterbodies and nearby terrestrial habitat) is 11 discussed in Section 5.0. The use of the RCW system to provide cooling water when MDWASD 12 reclaimed water is not available is unlikely to affect the American crocodile or Florida manatee. 13 Because this system would have no connection to the IWF, crocodiles would not be affected by 14 its operation. Potential changes in nearshore salinity from RCW operation is also unlikely to 15 affect Florida manatee occurring near the Turkey Point plant, but may affect aquatic species at 16 nearshore locations in Biscayne Bay, as discussed in the NMFS BA.

17 3.2.1.1 Site Stormwater Runoff Plan

18 NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Section 3.2.2.1 discusses stormwater drainage for the plant area. 19 Stormwater discharge locations are shown in NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Figure 3-7 The local site 20 hydrology prior to building is discussed in EIS Section 2.3.1.1. According to Table 2-10 of the 21 NRC EIS, NUREG-2176, the average annual runoff for the plant area prior to building for the 22 period from 2000 to 2010 is 1,307 ac-ft from an annual average precipitation depth of 56.10 in. 23 The review team estimated stormwater discharge to the IWF from the plant area after building to 24 be 1,141 ac-ft, assuming 100 percent runoff of precipitation. The annual average runoff after 25 building decreases largely due to the removal of the makeup-water reservoir as a contributing 26 area. The maximum annual precipitation during the period was 71.53 in. during 2005, which

3-13 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 produces 1,428 ac-ft of runoff after building compared to 1,646 ac-ft (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 2 Table 2-10) prior to building.

3 Table 3-2. Estimated Contaminant Concentrations in the Cooling Canal from Drift 4 Deposition. Detection or reporting limits are provided for comparison. Drift 5 deposition is assumed to be the only source of contaminants.

Maximum Incremental Category Method Increases Detection of Concentration in Limit in Cooling Canals Contaminant (μg/L) (μg/L) Reclaimed Wastewater 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.1(a) 0.00070 Insect repellant 3 Beta-coprostanol 0.52(a) 0.0011 Human digestion 0.64(a) 0.0022 Detergent 4-Nonylphenol metabolite Acetyl-hexamethyl- 0.08(a) 0.0022 Polycyclic musk tetrahydro- (aka Tonalide) naphthalene (AHTN) Hexahydrohexamethylcyclo 0.12(a) 0.00027 Polycyclic musk pentabenzopyran (HHCB) (aka Galaxoide) Phenanthrene 0.08(a) 0.00032 PAH compound Warfarin 0.012 R 0.000064 Pharmaceutical 17 Beta-estradiol (E2) 2 R 0.000019 Hormone Triclosan Unk 0.00011 Antimicrobial Copper 6.0(b) 0.0052 Metal (a) Lietz and Meyer 2006-TN1005. (b) FPL 2012-TN263. R = Reporting limit. Unk = Unknown.

6 Because of the use of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management, as 7 discussed in Section 3.2.2.1, the review team concludes that the effects of the hydrological 8 alterations on the stormwater discharge to the IWF would be minimal.

9 3.2.1.2 Fogging and Increased Humidity

10 Operation of the cooling system could also increase local fogging. Increased fogging could 11 exacerbate risk of avian mortality caused by collision with tall structures. Localized fogging is 12 expected to be most pronounced during winter nights. However, the extent of expected fogging 13 coupled with the application of industry standards to limit upward lighting to the extent 14 practicable is expected to limit increased risk to collision mortality.

15 3.2.2 Transmission-Line Corridors

16 The primary transmission-line corridor maintenance activity that may affect terrestrial resources 17 is vegetation control. Transmission-line rights-of-way must be kept clear of woody growth

3-14 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 through maintenance practices that prevent them from either affecting the distribution of power 2 or becoming a safety hazard. FPL uses a site-specific maintenance program and accounts for 3 local factors including terrain and vegetation. The primary methods FPL would use to control 4 vegetation include trimming, mowing, and chemical control using herbicides and plant growth 5 regulators (FPL 2014-TN4058). Plant species that could grow taller than 14 ft would be 6 removed. Areas dominated by low-growing plants, including agriculture and sawgrass marsh, 7 would require less maintenance than areas with taller vegetation. Proposed new transmission- 8 line corridors would affect small areas within remnant patches of pine rockland habitats in the 9 South Florida agricultural landscape west and northwest of the FPL Turkey Point site. Pine 10 rocklands are a disturbance community that requires periodic disturbance to set back 11 succession. Fire was the periodic disturbance with which pine rocklands have evolved. Human 12 habitation has required fire suppression in much of South Florida. It is not known whether the 13 presence of powerlines would eliminate the use of fire to rejuvenate pine rockland fragments 14 within transmission-line corridors. Current management of pine rocklands where fire cannot be 15 used as a management tool includes periodic mowing. Mowing may help maintain populations 16 of certain rockland plant species but is generally regarded as a poor surrogate for fire as 17 management tool for communities that require periodic disturbance. Vegetation maintenance 18 practices using mechanical or chemical controls could result in mortality to less mobile animals, 19 such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals that are unable to escape mowers, vehicles, 20 spray rigs, and other equipment. If vegetation maintenance occurs during the spring and/or 21 early summer nesting period, ground-nesting birds’ nests could be disturbed or damaged. 22 Noise and human presence may temporarily displace wildlife from the corridors until disturbing 23 activities are completed. In general, these impacts are considered to be minor. Maintenance of 24 early successional habitat and habitat edge (i.e., forest and/or clearing interface environments) 25 within transmission-line corridors would be beneficial to wildlife favoring these habitats, but may 26 also lead to establishment or spread of exotic plant species. Conversely, vegetation control 27 may serve to maintain habitat fragmentation that occurred when the transmission-line right-of- 28 way was created by not allowing natural succession to reclaim past areas of disturbance. FPL 29 would maintain the transmission-line rights-of-way supporting proposed Units 6 and 7 in 30 compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and permit requirements 31 (FPL 2014-TN4058). Compliance with these laws would also be protective of aquatic species 32 occurring along transmission-line rights-of-way.

33 Overhead transmission lines also pose a risk to birds. At least 41 species of birds are known to 34 have been killed by interaction with Florida electrical utility structures; birds of 20 of these 35 species have been killed by colliding with FPL electrical utility structures (FPL 2011-TN1283). 36 Transmission-line structures, conductors, and guy wires pose a potential avian collision hazard 37 for all resident birds that live in the vicinity of the transmission lines and for migratory birds that 38 may pass through these areas. The greatest risk for avian collision is likely to occur for heavy, 39 less agile birds, such as waterfowl and large wading birds (NRC 1999-TN289). Waterfowl and 40 wading birds are expected to occur near various wetland types that are prevalent in South 41 Florida. Large raptors may also be susceptible to collision hazards, particularly juvenile raptors 42 that have recently fledged. The 230 kV transmission lines would be supported by single-pole 43 concrete structures approximately 80 to 90 ft tall. The substation pull-off towers would be 44 galvanized steel or concrete. The 500 kV transmission-line towers would be 140 to 160 ft tall,

3-15 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 made of concrete, galvanized lattice steel, or tubular steel. Tower spans would be between 900 2 and 1,000 ft, although they might vary with site-specific conditions.

3-16 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 4.0 Protected Species Descriptions

2 This section describes the life history and habitat use of Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic 3 species under the jurisdiction of the FWS that may occur on or near the Turkey Point site and 4 within proposed transmission-line and reclaimed water pipeline corridors.

5 4.1 Florida Bonneted Bat

6 The Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) is a Federal endangered species that was 7 originally proposed to be listed as endangered in October 2012 (FWS 2012-TN117; 77 FR 8 60750 [TN2276]) and was subsequently listed in November 2013 (78 FR 61004) (TN2659). It is 9 also a Florida State-listed endangered species. This bat species is a year-round resident. The 10 whole population is very small and may be limited to a few hundred individuals (FWS 2011- 11 TN147). It also has a limited range that includes the cities of Coral Gables and Homestead in 12 Miami-Dade County (FNAI 2014-TN3668; FWS 2011-TN147). A 2006−2008 acoustic survey 13 found three calls recorded near Homestead, Florida, which was the nearest bat survey location 14 to any of the proposed project locations (FWS 2011-TN147). The species has been observed 15 roosting in palm trees, tree cavities, rock crevices, artificial bat houses, and will also readily 16 roost within Spanish tiled roofs (FNAI 2000-TN139). They prefer to forage high in the air over 17 open freshwater wetland habitats (FWS 2011-TN147) and over man-made landscapes 18 (FNAI 2000-TN139). Unlike most bats, the Florida bonneted bat produces a call that is audible 19 to the human ear and can be surveyed without ultrasonic acoustic equipment. Two-hour bat 20 surveys were conducted between the existing Turkey Point facilities and an adjacent mangrove 21 area, but no bats were detected. Nothing is known about the occurrence, distribution, and 22 abundance of this bat at any of the proposed project locations. FPL reported the Florida 23 bonneted bat has been observed in the Turkey Point vicinity, but FPL did not provide details of 24 this record and this occurrence has not been confirmed (FPL 2011-TN1374). Hollow trees and 25 buildings roofed with Spanish tiles do not appear to be abundant in the landscape around 26 project areas of the Turkey Point site. Palm trees have been planted as ornamental trees and 27 are scattered around the site. Spanish tile roofs and palms planted for landscaping may be 28 more abundant where transmission-line corridors, such as the Davis-to-Miami section of the 29 East corridor, pass through previously developed residential and industrial areas.

30 4.2 Florida Panther

31 The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) is Federally endangered (FWS 2012-TN117). The 32 small population of 100 to 160 individuals in South Florida represents the only known remaining 33 wild population of this subspecies (FFWCC 2010-TN3438). The panther presently occupies one 34 of the least-developed areas in the eastern United States, which is a contiguous system of large 35 private ranches and public conservation lands in Broward, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee, Miami- 36 Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach Counties totaling more than 809,400 ha. The largest 37 contiguous tract of panther habitat is in the Big Cypress Swamp/Everglades physiographic 38 regions. Radio-telemetry surveys have indicated that panthers prefer native, upland forests, 39 especially hardwood hammocks and pine flatwoods, over wetlands and disturbed habitats. 40 Understory thickets of tall, almost impenetrable saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) have been 41 identified as important denning cover for panthers. The FWS recognizes much of Miami-Dade

4-1 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 County and South Florida as a Florida Panther Focus Area (FWS 1999-TN136). Although most 2 of the FPL Turkey Point site lies outside of the focus area, lands immediately adjacent to the 3 site (south and west) are contained within the focus area and are also considered to be within 4 the panther’s primary zone (FWS 2007-TN230; Kautz et al. 2006-TN3440). No confirmed 5 panther occurrences have been recorded on the Turkey Point site or within the proposed 6 reclaimed and potable water corridors (FPL 2014-TN4058). Radio-collared panthers have been 7 recorded near both the preferred and secondary routes of the proposed West transmission-line 8 corridor between the Clear Sky and Levee substations and an historic Florida panther den was 9 also located near the corridor (FPL 2014-TN4058). During October 2013, an adult panther and 10 kitten were sighted along the proposed West transmission-line corridor in the Model Lands 11 Basin approximately 2 mi west of the Turkey Point boundary (SFWMD 2013-TN2917).

12 4.3 Florida Manatee

13 The Florida manatee, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), is a 14 large marine mammal found in coastal and freshwater systems on both coasts of Florida. 15 Manatees are Federally and State-listed as endangered and their critical habitat include the 16 northern portion of Biscayne Bay and Card Sound south of the Turkey Point site (Figure 4-1). 17 There is no designated critical habitat at the Turkey Point site (FPL 2012-TN1618). Areas 18 defined by the FWS as “manatee consultation areas” include coastal regions of South Florida 19 and large inland waterbodies such as Lake Okeechobee. Thus, the Turkey Point site would be 20 included in the manatee consultation area (FPL 2012-TN1618). Manatees have not been 21 observed in the IWF (FPL 2014-TN4058) but have been found in some of the South Florida 22 Water Management District (SFWMD) canals that discharge to Biscayne Bay north of the 23 Turkey Point facility, including the C-100, C-1, C-102, Military, C-103, North, Florida City, FPL 24 (Sea Dade), Card Sound Road, and C-111 canals (FPL 2012-TN1618). They are also known to 25 occur in nearshore seagrass beds of Biscayne Bay, and may occasionally be present near the 26 Turkey Point equipment barge-unloading area north of the Turkey Point peninsula.

27 Manatees are generalist herbivores that are able to feed on a variety of vegetation types. They 28 are tolerant of changes in salinity, but sensitive to temperature variations, because they lack a 29 thick insulating layer of blubber common to other marine mammals (Smith 1993-TN218). 30 During summer, the Florida manatee is found primarily in the shallow fresh, brackish, and 31 marine waters along both coasts of Florida. Individuals usually remain in 10 to 16 ft-deep 32 waters and rarely venture into water exceeding 20 ft. Threats to manatees include death 33 attributable to vessel strikes, cold shock and stress, the management of water-control structures 34 and navigational locks, and loss of habitat associated with coastal development (FWS 2001- 35 TN223; Runge et al. 2007-TN199).

36 As noted in both the 2001 Manatee Recovery Plan (FWS 2001-TN223) and the 2007 Florida 37 Manatee Management Plan (FFWCC 2007-TN853), scientists have not been able to develop a 38 useful way to measure or monitor manatee population trends, or perform statistical 39 assessments of abundance or population trends. The location of winter aggregation sites are 40 known, however, and include locations near power plants discharging warm water on the east 41 coast of Florida. Turkey Point is not one of those areas (FWS 2001-TN223). Synoptic aerial 42 surveys conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) from 43 1991 to 2011 on the east and west coasts of Florida show a high degree of variability. Results

4-2 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 from 2001 to 2011 have ranged from 864 to 2,780 animals on the east coast of Florida. As 2 noted by FFWCC, the current synoptic survey methods provide a minimum count of manatees, 3 but do not provide a population estimate (FFWCC 2013-TN2469).

4 5 Figure 4-1. Critical Habitat for the Florida Manatee near the Turkey Point Site

6 4.4 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow

7 The Cape Sable seaside sparrow (ammodramus maritimus mirabilis) is a Federally listed 8 endangered species in Miami-Dade County (FWS 2012-TN117; FNAI 2014-TN3668). This 9 medium-sized sparrow has a range that is restricted to the southern Florida peninsula 10 (FWS 1999-TN136; FWS 2010-TN256). They are non-migratory residents of freshwater to 11 brackish marshes of the Everglades region of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. Their

4-3 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 preferred nesting habitat appears to be a mixed marl prairie community that often includes 2 muhly grass (Muhlenbergia filipes). The birds tend to avoid tall, dense, sawgrass-dominated 3 communities and sites with permanent water cover (FWS 1999-TN136).

4 The species includes six subpopulations and the total estimated population is 2,900 individuals 5 FWS 2010-TN256). Critical habitat designated for this species includes suitable habitat 6 contained within five polygons that range in size from 4,800 to 39,000 ac that are south and 7 west of the Turkey Point site. No Cape Sable seaside sparrows were observed during surveys 8 at the Turkey Point site or the transmission-line rights-of-way (FPL 2014-TN4058). Their well- 9 known distribution and ecologically narrow habitat preference very likely excludes the potential 10 for this species to occur at any of the proposed project areas, because land-cover classification 11 information indicates suitable habitat is not present.

12 4.5 Rufa Red Knot

13 The rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is a proposed Federal threatened species (78 FR 14 60024) (TN3199). As of 2008, the rufa subspecies is thought to have three biogeographically 15 distinct populations, one of which winters in the southeastern United States, including Georgia, 16 South Carolina, and Florida (FWS 2013-TN3202). During the winter of 1993-1994 the FFWCC 17 evaluated wintering shorebird distribution and abundance along the entire coast of Florida. The 18 FFWCC determined the most important shorebird wintering areas in Florida are along the Gulf 19 Coast and there are no important sites for wintering shorebirds along the Atlantic Coast of 20 Miami-Dade County (Sprandel et al. 2000-TN3203). Like other shorebirds, red knots winter in 21 Florida primarily along the central Gulf Coast and that is where survey efforts are focused 22 (FWS 2013-TN3202; FWS 2012-TN146; Niles et al. 2008-TN143). Although approximately 550 23 red knots were observed during the winter of 2007-2008 along a portion of the west coast of 24 Florida between Anclote Key and Cape Romano (Niles et al. 2008-TN143), over 3,000 red knots 25 were counted in Florida in 2006 and over 1,000 again in 2011 (FWS 2013-TN3202), red knots 26 have not been observed and are not known to occur on the Turkey Point property or along the 27 Atlantic Coast of Miami-Dade County. Red knot migration flight has been observed to be very 28 long, and includes flight over the open ocean directly to South America from coastal 29 Massachusetts. However, during migration red knots can occur at suitable habitats all along the 30 coast (FWS 2013-TN3202).

31 Habitats used by red knots in winter include coastal beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, and 32 peat banks; they also use mangrove and brackish-water lagoons (FWS 2012-TN146). Roosting 33 habitat that provides areas above the highest tides that is free from excessive human 34 disturbance may also be important. Beach habitat along the east border of the Turkey Point 35 property could be suitable for wintering red knots, and the Units 6 and 7 plant area could also 36 provide mudflat habitat suitable for foraging or roosting. Suitable habitat is not likely to occur at 37 any of the offsite locations.

38 4.6 Piping Plover

39 The Atlantic population of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is a Federally listed 40 threatened species in Miami-Dade County (FWS 2012-TN117; FNAI 2014-TN3668). This 41 plover is a small, migratory shorebird that breeds only in three geographic regions of North

4-4 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 American (FWS 1999-TN136). Piping plovers do not breed in Florida, but individuals from all 2 three breeding populations do winter there and have been observed at Crandon Park in Miami- 3 Dade County (Elliot-Smith et al. 2009-TN3296). From 2001 to 2009 the total number of piping 4 plovers observed along the Atlantic Coast of South Florida ranged between 15 and 67 5 individuals (Elliot-Smith et al. 2009-TN3296). Their winter habitat includes beaches, mudflats, 6 and sandflats as well as barrier island beaches and spoil islands. Piping plovers seem to prefer 7 landforms that provide tidal flats for foraging and open beaches for roosting within close 8 proximity of each other. The migration pattern of piping plovers is not well documented, but 9 birds should appear in Florida any time after late July through September and leave from late 10 February to early April (FWS 1999-TN136). The piping plover is not known to occur on the 11 Turkey Point property, and no piping plovers were seen during surveys of the Turkey Point site 12 or the transmission-line rights-of-way (FPL 2014-TN4058). Although the piping plover has not 13 been observed on the Turkey Point property, FPL acknowledged the probability of occurrence in 14 the vicinity is moderate (FPL 2011-TN1374). The FFWCC has determined that piping plovers 15 may occur within the proposed project area and have the potential to be affected 16 (FFWCC 2012-TN520), and the Units 6 and 7 plant area could provide suitable mudflat habitats 17 for wintering piping plovers. Land-cover classification information indicates it is unlikely suitable 18 habitat for the piping plover exists within the potable and reclaimed water pipeline corridors.

19 4.7 Wood Stork

20 The wood stork (Mycteria americana) is a Federally threatened species (79 FR 37077) 21 (TN4039). It breeds in South Florida using a variety of wetlands including freshwater and 22 estuarine habitats for nesting, roosting, and foraging (FWS 1999-TN136; FWS 1997-TN225). 23 Wood storks typically construct their nests in medium to tall trees that occur in stands either in 24 swamps or on islands surrounded by relatively broad expanses of open water and they often 25 reuse colony sites many years. Wood storks have abandoned colony locations when water- 26 management practices removed surface water from beneath nesting trees that afforded 27 protection from land-based predators. During the non-breeding season, wood storks occur in a 28 wide variety of wetland habitats including freshwater marshes, stock ponds, shallow, seasonally 29 flooded roadside or agricultural ditches, narrow tidal creeks, or shallow tidal pools (FWS 1999- 30 TN136). Foraging occurs in almost any shallow, open water where prey items become 31 concentrated (FWS 1997-TN225).

32 Wood storks do not nest at the Turkey Point site but have been observed at the Turkey Point 33 site as recently as June 2008 using shallow portions of the IWF during the winter (FPL 2014- 34 TN4058). Three storks were also observed foraging and roosting in shallow mangrove wetlands 35 immediately west of the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area, and they have nested in four 36 colonies within 5 mi of the proposed Turkey Point-Levee transmission-line corridors (FPL 2014- 37 TN4058). Although there is no designated critical habitat for the wood stork, the FWS 38 Southeast Florida Ecological Services Office recognizes a 0.47-mi nest colony buffer and an 39 18.6-mi (29.9-km) core foraging area (CFA) distance buffer around all known wood stork 40 colonies that have had active nests within the last 10 years in South Florida (FWS 2010- 41 TN226). Portions of both the East and West transmission-line corridors intersect the CFAs of 42 nine wood stork colonies. Impacts on suitable habitats within either of these buffer zones would 43 require mitigation depending on the impact level (FWS 2010-TN226). Wood stork occurrence 44 and abundance within the water pipeline corridors has not been investigated. The dominance of

4-5 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 wetland land-cover types within both corridors and the presence of freshwater marsh and 2 various other wetland types indicate that suitable foraging and roosting habitat is likely present 3 within the reclaimed water pipeline corridor, potable water pipeline corridor, and at the FPL- 4 owned fill-source location.

5 4.8 Everglade Snail Kite

6 The Federally endangered Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) is a wide- 7 ranging New World raptor found primarily in lowland freshwater marshes. In Florida, the 8 population appears to be restricted to the watersheds of the Everglades, Lakes Okeechobee 9 and Kissimmee, and the upper St. Johns River. Further, the Everglades snail kites’ diet is 10 composed almost entirely of apple snails (Pomacea paludosa) (FWS 1999-TN136). Everglade 11 snail kites have not been observed on the Turkey Point site, but have been observed within the 12 Everglades Mitigation Bank adjacent to the Turkey Point site (FPL 2014-TN4058). A single 13 Everglades snail kite was observed during reconnaissance surveys of the transmission-line 14 corridors in May 2008. Everglade snail kite nesting has been previously observed and a single 15 snail kite was observed along a section of the Clear Sky-to-Levee (West Preferred) corridor that 16 lies along the east Everglades during wildlife survey of the transmission-line corridors (NPS 17 2010-TN1526; FPL 2011-TN94). Although the exact locations of these observations are not 18 documented, snail kites appear to be most numerous along the West transmission-line corridor 19 where the preferred and secondary corridors diverge. During 2010−2012, at least 14 snail kite 20 observations were made by the FFWCC from the L-31 levee where the preferred transmission 21 line would be built (FFWCC 2013-TN2339). Suitable habitat that exists immediately to the east 22 of this levee would be bisected by the secondary route approximately 2 mi west of the L-31 23 levee. The FFWCC believes snail kites nest within this habitat area, but this has not been 24 confirmed because the habitat is inaccessible by airboat because of the terrain. The FFWCC 25 also observed 31 snail kite nests during this same time frame immediately north in Water 26 Conservation Area 3B, which is bordered by the preferred route and is to be bisected by the 27 secondary route. Snail kite nests within Water Conservation Area 3B tend to be located along 28 existing canals and kites forage across the local landscape. Snail kite nesting here represents 29 one of few areas where successful nesting has occurred within the southern portion of the snail 30 kites range (FFWCC 2013-TN2339).

31 No surveys to document snail kites have been performed within the reclaimed or potable water 32 pipeline corridors or the FPL-owned fill-source location. Sawgrass marsh, the habitat known to 33 harbor apple snails, is not known to be present within the reclaimed water pipeline corridor. 34 Approximately 2 ac of sawgrass marsh is present within the potable water corridor, but the small 35 size would likely preclude Everglade snail kites. FWS-designated critical habitat for the snail 36 kite exists in western Miami-Dade County beginning about 22 mi west of the Turkey Point site. 37 The FWS has also established a snail kite conservation area that includes much of southern 38 Florida but excludes the Turkey Point site (FWS 2003-TN227). The nearest boundary of the 39 conservation area is about 4.5 mi west of the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area (FWS 2003- 40 TN227).

4-6 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 4.9 Roseate Tern

2 The Caribbean population of the roseate tern (Sterna dougalii dougalii) is a Federally threatened 3 species (52 FR 42064) (TN3277) that has nested in the Florida Keys (FWS 1999-TN136). It 4 nests on open sandy or gravel beaches and salt marsh with minimal human activity and prefers 5 isolated islands in Florida. Roseate terns forage for schooling fish over open water. Roseate 6 terns are not known to occur on the Turkey Point site and would not be expected to occur at any 7 of the proposed project areas.

8 4.10 American Crocodile

9 American crocodiles (Crocodylus acutus) are commonly found in coastal areas throughout the 10 Caribbean in both brackish and saltwater habitats, including ponds, coves, creeks, and 11 mangrove swamps. Crocodiles are opportunistic feeders, eating a variety of fish, snails, 12 crustaceans, crab turtles, snakes, birds, and mammals. South Florida is considered the 13 northern edge of their range (FFWCC 2012-TN164). Optimum nesting requirements include the 14 presence of elevated, well-drained substrate near water >1 m deep, salinity ranging from 10 to 15 20 ppt, and nesting locations that are protected from wind and wave action and free from human 16 disturbance and predators. Egg incubation temperatures are also important in the 17 determination of sex; mostly female hatchlings occur below 31⁰C and mostly male hatchlings 18 occur above 31⁰C (Charruau 2012-TN2489). The use of artificial substrates provided by FPL to 19 encourage nesting has contributed to the increase in the number of nests in South Florida and 20 at the Turkey Point site (FPL 2009-TN974). This species was listed as endangered throughout 21 its range in 1975 (40 FR 44149-44151) (TN2587) and critical habitat was established in 1979 22 (Figure 4-2); it comprises both marine and nearshore areas that include Biscayne Bay, Card 23 Sound, Florida Bay, and portions of Whitewater Bay (41 FR 41914) (TN275). Critical habitat 24 encompasses most of the Turkey Point facility, including the IWF, proposed Units 6 and 7 site, 25 and the Turkey Point peninsula where RCW installation would occur. The location for the 26 RWTF is outside of the critical habitat boundaries (Figure 4-2).

27 As discussed in FPL’s Ten-Year Power Plant Site Plan (FPL 2013-TN2630), population 28 estimates for South Florida in the early 20th century ranged from 1,000 to 2,000 individuals. 29 Hunting and habitat modification associated with development and urbanization in South Florida 30 reduced this number to a few hundred juveniles and adults in the 1960s and 1970s. Over the 31 past 30 years, the American crocodile populations in South Florida have increased substantially, 32 and 2005 estimates suggest a population of between 1,400 to 2,000 adults and juveniles 33 (FWS 2006-TN832). In response to this population increase, the FWS downlisted American 34 crocodile from Federally endangered to threatened for the Florida distinct population segment in 35 2007 (72 FR 13027) (TN274), and this species is currently considered endangered by the State 36 of Florida (FFWCC 2011-TN158).

37 The construction of the Turkey Point facility in the 1960s and 1970s and the creation of the IWF 38 significantly affected the existing American crocodile populations by creating new nesting 39 habitat that provided shelter from prevailing winds and storms, suitable substrate for nesting, 40 consistent water levels reducing the potential for egg damage from flooding or desiccation, and 41 protection from predators. Crocodiles were first observed at the Turkey Point site in 1976, and 42 nesting was first documented in 1978. Consultation history with regard to the renewal of the

4-7 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 2 Figure 4-2. Critical Habitat for the American Crocodile near the Turkey Point Site

4-8 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 existing nuclear units (Units 3 and 4) began on August 28, 2001, with a letter from the NRC to 2 the FWS that included the submission of a BA for Units 3 and 4. In a letter to the NRC on 3 December 7, 2001 (FWS 2006-TN832), the FWS concurred with the NRC’s determination that 4 renewal of Units 3 and 4 would have no effect or may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 5 Federally listed species, including the American crocodile (FWS 2006-TN832). The discovery of 6 a dead juvenile crocodile at the Turkey Point site on December 21, 2005, resulted in additional 7 consultation in early 2006 that resulted in a change of the determination by the NRC from “may 8 affect, not likely to adversely affect” to “may effect, likely to adversely affect” (FWS 2006- 9 TN832). In the 2006 Biological Opinion, the FWS initially anticipated an incidental take of one 10 American crocodile every 5 years (FWS 2006-TN832). This was later amended on August 1, 11 2006, to allow an incidental take of two American crocodiles between May 2006 through May 12 2011, and thereafter one American crocodile per year (FPL 2012-TN1618). According to FPL, 13 the current incidental take amount has not been exceeded at any time since 2006. Two 14 individuals were killed as a result of vehicular trauma in separate incidents on May 27 and 15 December 3, 2006, and one additional death from vehicular trauma was reported on November 16 16, 2011 (FPL 2012-TN1618).

17 Recent crocodile monitoring data provided by FPL from 2000 to 2012 are summarized in 18 Table 4-1. The number of successful nests observed from 2000 to 2012 has ranged from a low 19 of 14 in 2001 to a high of 28 in 2008; the number of hatchlings captured has ranged from 134 in 20 2004 to 548 in 2009. The general conclusions of the 2009 monitoring report were (1) the record 21 numbers of hatchlings in 2009 may have been a result of FPL’s maintenance and preservation 22 efforts or an increase in clutch size of the more mature females, and (2) the population of the 23 crocodiles may be stabilizing as a result of younger reproductive females moving offsite and 24 finding suitable nesting habitat elsewhere (FPL 2009-TN210). FPL attributes the reduction in 25 observed nests and hatchlings captured in 2010 to the record low temperatures recorded in 26 South Florida during the winter of 2009-2010. The cold winter may have caused a delay in 27 successful courtship interactions or prohibited females from storing enough energy to reproduce 28 (FPL 2010-TN211).

29 Nest locations from 1978 to 2010 are shown in Figure 4-3. Although clusters of nests have 30 occurred just south of the proposed location of Units 6 and 7, the majority of the nesting sites 31 are found in the southernmost zones (zones 4 and 5) of the IWF and in the southern part of the 32 return canals (FPL 2012-TN1618). A similar nesting pattern is found based on monitoring data 33 for 2011 and 2012 (Figure 4-4(FPL 2012-TN1618).

34 The current FPL American crocodile management program summarized by FPL (2012-TN1618) 35 describes a variety of activities for creating and enhancing crocodile habitat, and for monitoring 36 reproductive success, growth, and survival of hatchlings. Key elements of the program include 37 the following: 38 • preserving and creating habitat suitable for crocodile nesting and basking 39 • establishing exclusion zones at known nesting sites (nest sanctuaries) 40 • daytime and nighttime monitoring surveys to document nesting activity and use of the IWF 41 • capture and tagging of hatchlings using American Veterinary Identification Devices 42 microchip technology

4-9 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Table 4-1. American Crocodile Monitoring Results at the Turkey Point Site, 2000−2012

Nests Hatchlings Captured Year Identified and Tagged Citation 2000 17 298 FPL 2000-TN202 RAI 5704 ML11168A043 2001 14 227 FPL 2003-TN168 RAI 5704 ML11168A043 2002 17 291 FPL 2003-TN203 RAI 5704 ML11168A043 2003 17 295 FPL 2003-TN204 RAI 5704 ML11168A043 2004 18 134 FPL 2004-TN205 RAI 5704 ML11168A043 2005 24 282 FPL 2005-TN206 RAI 5704 ML11168A043 2006 24 340 FPL 2006-TN207 RAI 5704 ML11168A043 2007 21 305 FPL 2007-TN208RAI 5704 ML11180A084 2008 28 510 FPL 2008-TN209 RAI 5704 ML11180A084 2009 24 548 FPL 2009-TN210 RAI 5704 ML11180A084 2010 16 196 FPL 2010-TN211 RAI 5704 ML11180A084 2011 15 268 FPL 2011-TN2471 2012 18 229 FPL 2012-TN2470 2013 25 429 FPL 2013-TN3232 2 • relocation of hatchlings to low-salinity habitat during early life stages to increase survival 3 • recapture, monitoring, and release of individuals to document growth and survival 4 • enactment of a crocodile awareness program to educate the public concerning the status of 5 the crocodile in South Florida.

6 In addition to relocating hatchlings to low-salinity environments located in depressions on top of 7 the IWF berms, FPL has indicated it would create a new sanctuary area (Sea Dade Crocodile 8 Sanctuary) located south and west of the IWF (FPL 2012-TN1618|, Figure 21|).

9 The American crocodile management program (FPL 2012-TN1618) also includes site rules and 10 restrictions to protect resident crocodiles that would continue during the construction of Units 6 11 and 7, including the following: 12 • constraints on vehicular traffic within the IWF at night and during critical periods of the 13 nesting season 14 • constraints on road maintenance and construction activities at night, during critical periods 15 of the nesting season, and within known crocodile crossing sites 16 • identification and avoidance of nest site sanctuaries 17 • training requirements for site personnel handling hatchings and using equipment in the area.

4-10 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 2 Figure 4-3. Locations of Crocodile Nests in the Turkey Point Cooling-Canal System, 3 1978−2010 (Source: FPL 2010-TN170)

4 5

6 7 8

4-11 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 2 Figure 4-4. Crocodile Nests Observed in 2011 and 2012

3 4.11 Eastern Indigo Snake

4 The eastern indigo snake is a Federally threatened species known to occur in Miami-Dade 5 County (FWS 2012-TN117; FNAI 2014-TN3668). This large, black, non-venomous snake is 6 found primarily in upland habitats (FWS 1999-TN136). They have also been found in pinelands, 7 tropical hardwood hammocks, and mangrove forests. The eastern indigo snake needs a 8 mosaic of habitats to complete its annual cycle. In extreme South Florida (the Everglades and 9 Florida Keys), eastern indigo snakes are found in tropical hardwood hammocks, pine rocklands,

4-12 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 freshwater marshes, abandoned agricultural land, coastal prairie, mangrove swamps, and 2 human-altered habitats (FWS 1999-TN136). Although the snake was previously observed on 3 the Turkey Point site (NRC 2002-TN2605) and within the Everglades Mitigation Bank 4 immediately south of the IWF in 2004 and just south of SW 344th Street/Palm Drive in 1982 5 (FPL 2014-TN4058), it was not observed during recent surveys of the proposed Turkey Point 6 Units 6 and 7 plant area (FPL 2011-TN94). Eastern indigo snakes were also observed at two 7 locations within the eastern transmission-line corridor in 2011 (FPL 2012-TN1446). Although 8 surveys were not conducted to determine the presence and distribution of eastern indigo snakes 9 within the reclaimed and potable water pipeline corridors, this species is likely present in 10 suitable habitats and landscapes within the borders of these proposed project areas.

11 4.12 Florida Leafwing Butterfly

12 The Florida leafwing (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) was listed as a Federally endangered species 13 in August 2013 (79 FR 47222) (TN3726). It has historically occurred in pine rocklands that 14 contain its only host plant the pineland croton (Croton linearis), but it is currently known to exist 15 only within the Long Pine Key region of the Everglades National Park. Pine rocklands would be 16 classified as pine flatwoods in land-cover information. However, remnant pine rocklands may 17 be too small to be mapped as pine flatwoods and may be included within other land cover types. 18 The FWS states there are 77 pine rockland fragments totaling 916 ac (370 ha) that contain the 19 pineland croton in addition to 2,639 ac (1,068 ha) of pineland croton-bearing rocklands within 20 the Everglades National Park (FWS 2011-TN2849). Critical habitat has also been designated 21 for the Florida leafwing and includes currently unoccupied habitat identified as essential to the 22 conservation of the species. Four critical habitat units totaling 8,283 ac (3,351 ha) have been 23 proposed and include the Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the Richmond Pine Rocklands in 24 Miami-Dade County as well as small rockland remnants in the vicinity of these two parcels (78 25 FR 49832) (TN2845). The Navy Wells Pineland Preserve formerly supported a breeding 26 population of Florida leafwing butterflies.

27 The pineland croton is a small, early-successional shrub found in pine rockland understory. Its 28 main method of regeneration is post-disturbance sprouting. Disturbance can be caused by 29 wildland fire, hurricane, and possibly freezing, but prescribed fire is the primary tool for 30 management of the pineland croton. Without periodic disturbance, natural succession converts 31 pine rocklands into hardwood hammocks and the pineland croton disappears from the 32 community.

33 4.13 Miami Blue Butterfly

34 The Miami blue (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus) is a Federal candidate species within 35 Miami-Dade County (FWS 2012-TN117; FNAI 2014-TN3668). Primarily a coastal species, the 36 Miami blue inhabits tropical coastal hammocks, scrub, and pine rocklands (Daniels 2005- 37 TN141). The butterfly relies on the pods of balloonvine (Cardiospermum corindum) and yellow 38 nicker (Caesalpinia bonduc) as its primary larval hosts, and also possibly love-in-a-puff 39 (Cardiospermum halicacabum). Although no invertebrate surveys have been conducted at 40 proposed project locations, the Miami blue is only known to occur in the Lower Florida Keys 41 (Daniels 2005-TN141).

4-13 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 4.14 Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly

2 Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus) is a Federally endangered 3 species found in Miami-Dade County (FWS 2012-TN117). This butterfly occurs exclusively 4 within subtropical dry hardwood forests otherwise known as tropical hardwood hammocks. 5 Hardwood hammocks occupied by Schaus swallowtail have mature overstories, are at relatively 6 high elevation (3 m to 4.6 m above sea level), are outside of the intertidal zone, and are found 7 on Key Largo limestone of the Upper Florida Keys. Torchwood (Amyris elemifera) is the host 8 plant for larvae of this butterfly species (FWS 1999-TN136). Land-cover classes that would 9 include tropical hardwood hammock habitat include Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), 10 tropical hardwoods, and western Everglades hardwoods.

11 4.15 Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterfly

12 Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak (Strymon acis bartrami) was listed as a Federally endangered 13 species in August 2013 (79 FR 47222) (TN3726). Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak also occurs 14 exclusively within pine rocklands of southern Florida and is dependent on pineland croton as the 15 sole host plant species. The ecology and life histories of the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak and the 16 Florida leafwing are so similar these two species are often co-located. Bartram’s scrub- 17 hairstreak is also found within the Long Pine Key and Big Pine Key. Unlike the Florida leafwing, 18 the scrub-hairstreak has also been sporadically observed at the Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, 19 Camp Awaissa Bauer, and the Richmond Pine Rocklands in Miami-Dade County (78 FR 49878) 20 (TN2844). Proposed critical habitat for Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak includes all of the land 21 proposed as critical habitat for the Florida leafwing and an additional 397 ac (78 FR 49832) 22 (TN2845). One parcel of land proposed as critical habitat for this scrub-hairstreak, the King’s 23 Highway Pineland Preserve, is bisected by the proposed West transmission-line corridors.

24 4.16 Crenulate Lead-Plant

25 The crenulate lead-plant (Amorpha crenulata) is a Federally endangered species found naturally 26 at five sites within Miami-Dade County and has been introduced at a sixth site (FWS 2012- 27 TN117; FNAI 2014-TN3668). The plant is a deciduous shrub that occurs in seasonally hydrated 28 soils and in areas subject to frequent burning. It is found specifically in marl prairies (flatlands 29 with marl over limestone substrate that are seasonally inundated) and wet pine rocklands 30 (flatlands with exposed limestone substrate) (FWS 1999-TN136). Although the crenulate lead- 31 plant is known to occur in Miami-Dade County but not near the Turkey Point site (Gann et 32 al. 2012-TN137), FPL noted that this species was observed in the vicinity of the Turkey Point 33 site (FPL 2011-TN1374). Supporting documentation from Tetra Tech indicates this plant has 34 not been observed on the Turkey Point site, in the vicinity, or within the proposed transmission- 35 line corridors. However, small remnant pine rocklands are present within the transmission-line 36 corridors and small areas of suitable habitat for the crenulate lead-plant may exist that have not 37 been surveyed. Land-cover classification does not indicate the presence of pine rocklands in 38 other areas potentially affected by the project.

4-14 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 4.17 Blodgett’s Silverbush

2 Blodgett’s silverbush (Argythamnia blodgettii) is a Federal candidate species within Miami-Dade 3 County (FWS 2012-TN117; FNAI 2014-TN3668) that occurs in sunny gaps and edges in pine 4 rockland, rockland hammock, and coastal berm habitats (FNAI 2000-TN139). It is found in 5 18 conservation areas in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties (Gann et al. 2012-TN137), 6 including Biscayne National Park and Everglades National Park, which are adjacent to the 7 Turkey Point site (FNAI 2012-TN1445). FPL acknowledged this species has been observed in 8 the vicinity of the Turkey Point property (FPL 2011-TN1374). It was not observed within the 9 transmission-line corridors. However, conditions during ground survey of a pine rockland 10 between SW 300 and 304 Streets were less than ideal and ground surveyors acknowledged this 11 species has the potential to occur within this rockland (FPL 2009-TN657). Land-cover 12 classification information indicates suitable habitat may not be present for Blodgett’s silverbush 13 in other areas potentially affected by the project

14 4.18 Florida Brickell-Bush

15 The Florida brickell-bush (Brickellia mosieri) is a Federally endangered forb found in pine 16 rocklands of central and southern Miami-Dade County from South Miami to Florida City (79 FR 17 52567) (TN4068). It grows on exposed limestone under an open shrub layer with minimal leaf 18 litter (FNAI 2000-TN139) and is currently believed to occur on at least 17 sites, many of which 19 are isolated. It has been observed in the vicinity of the Turkey Point property (FPL 2011- 20 TN1374) and within transmission-line corridor rights-of-way associated with proposed Turkey 21 Point Units 6 and 7 (FPL 2014-TN4058). A total of 17 individual Florida brickell-bush plants 22 were observed within 9.1 ac of the King’s Highway pineland within the proposed West 23 transmission-line corridors and an estimated 100 to 1000 individual plants may be present at 24 this location (FPL 2009-TN657). Designated critical habitat includes the King’s Highway 25 pineland that is bisected by both proposed West transmission-line corridors and the Sunny 26 Palms pineland that has a border within approximately 100 m of both proposed West 27 transmission-line corridors (79 FR 41211) (TN3725). Pineland habitat a the Gold Coast 28 Railroad Museum Park that borders the proposed East transmission-line corridor for 29 approximately 700 m is also designated critical habitat for the Florida brickell-bush. Land-cover 30 classification information indicates pine rockland habitat suitable for this species is not present 31 in other areas potentially affected by the project.

32 4.19 Deltoid Spurge

33 The deltoid spurge (Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea) is a Federally endangered perennial 34 forb that occurs in pine rocklands with open shrub canopy, exposed limestone, and minimal litter 35 (FWS 2012-TN117; FWS 1999-TN136). It is most often associated with the edges of sand 36 pockets; the plants grow both in sand and on oolitic limestone (Gann et al. 2012-TN137). 37 Deltoid spurge is not known to occur on the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 plant area, but FPL 38 noted that this species was observed in the vicinity of the Turkey Point site (FPL 2011-TN1374). 39 Although the deltoid spurge was listed as most likely to occur in the project area, it was not 40 found during a survey of selected pine rockland locations within the proposed transmission-line 41 corridors (FPL 2011-TN94). Land-cover classification information indicates pine rockland

4-15 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 habitat potentially suitable for this species is not present in other areas potentially affected by 2 the project.

3 4.20 Pineland Sandmat

4 The pineland sandmat (Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum) is a Federal candidate species 5 within Miami-Dade County (FWS 2012-TN117; FNAI 2014-TN3668). It is a perennial forb found 6 in pine rocklands with scattered shrubs and exposed limestone (FNAI 2000-TN139). It is 7 endemic to South Florida and is found in 10 conservation areas in Miami-Dade County north 8 and west of the Turkey Point site (Gann et al. 2012-TN1322). Pineland sandmat has been 9 observed in the vicinity of the Turkey Point property (FPL 2011-TN1374) as well as in the 10 transmission-line corridor rights-of-way associated with proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 11 (FPL 2014-TN4058). A total of 316 individual plants were observed growing in the privately 12 owned pine rockland preserve that currently contains an existing transmission line within an 13 easement and it was estimated that 1,000 to 10,000 individual plants may be present at this 14 location (FPL 2009-TN657). This pine rocklands is located within the proposed West 15 transmission-line corridors. Pineland sandmat has not been recorded within any of the other 16 offsite facility locations, but no surveys were conducted within the other offsite facilities. Land- 17 cover classification information indicates suitable habitat may not be present at the other offsite 18 facility locations.

19 4.21 Garber’s Spurge

20 Garber’s spurge (Chamaesyce garberi) is a Federally threatened species (FWS 2012-TN117). 21 The plant is a short-lived, perennial forb. It requires open sunny areas where frequent fires 22 have maintained an open canopy. It has been found in the following four habitats: beach dune, 23 coastal rock barren, disturbed upland, and pine rockland. Garber’s spurge has not been 24 observed within any of the project areas, although it is present on Cape Sable within the 25 Everglades National Park west of the Turkey Point site (Gann et al. 2012-TN137). Surveys 26 within the transmission-line corridors were conducted, but not within the pipeline corridors. 27 Habitat preferences likely exclude Garber’s spurge from any of the proposed project locations.

28 4.22 Okeechobee Gourd

29 The Okeechobee gourd (Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis) is Federally 30 endangered (FWS 2012-TN117). This vine was locally common in pond apple (Annon glabra) 31 forests that were formerly present within the region. The plant grows in swamps and wet soils 32 along rivers and lakes; it appears to require fluctuating water levels where high water allows for 33 seed dispersal and seeds germinate when water levels decline. Okeechobee gourds have been 34 observed growing in mowed transmission-line rights-of-way (FWS 1999-TN136). Plants were 35 seen north of Homestead in an agricultural area in 1965 (FWS 1999-TN136). As noted in 36 recent surveys, the species appears to be restricted to nine sites in Glades and Palm Beach 37 counties (Gann et al. 2012-TN137). It has not been observed within any of the project locations 38 during limited surveys, and the current known distribution excludes it from Miami-Dade County.

4-16 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 4.23 Small’s Milkpea

2 Small’s milkpea (Galactia smallii) is Federally endangered (FWS 2012-TN117). Small’s milkpea 3 is a small, perennial legume with small purple flowers and a prostrate growth form. The plant 4 occurs in the pine rocklands of southern Miami-Dade County, and in 1985 it was only known to 5 occur at two sites near Homestead (FWS 1999-TN136). A 1994 survey found the plant in seven 6 conservation areas, and it may occur in two additional conservation areas (Gann et al. 2012- 7 TN137). None of these areas is near the Turkey Point site. It is not known to occur within the 8 proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area and has not been observed during the survey of selected 9 sites within the transmission-line corridors. No plant surveys have been conducted within the 10 reclaimed and potable water corridors. Limited pine rocklands are present within proposed 11 transmission-line corridors, so habitat suitable for Small’s milkpea may be present.

12 4.24 Beach Jacquemontia

13 The beach jacquemontia (Jacquemontia reclinata) is Federally endangered (FWS 2012- 14 TN117). It is a member of the morning glory family that is restricted to beach coastal strand and 15 maritime hammock habitats and requires open areas generally found on the crest and lee side 16 of stable dunes (FWS 1999-TN136). It is also found in disturbed openings in maritime 17 hammocks, coastal strand, and coastal scrub habitat. Fewer than 500 plants are known from 9 18 sites. Beach jacquemontia is known to occur at only one location in Miami-Dade County, 19 Crandon Park, which is on Key Biscayne (FNAI 2000-TN139). Beach jacquemontia has not 20 been observed in the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area and suitable dune habitat is not present 21 there. It has not been observed at any of the other project sites, but all sites have not been 22 surveyed specifically for rare plants. Suitable dune habitat is not known to be present at any of 23 the other locations.

24 4.25 Sand Flax

25 The sand flax (Linum arenicola) is a proposed Federal candidate species found in Miami-Dade 26 County (FWS 2012-TN117; FNAI 2014-TN3668). This forb is found in pine rocklands, marl 27 prairie, and adjacent disturbed areas (FNAI 2000-TN139). Sand flax was observed during 28 survey of selected habitats associated with the proposed transmission-line corridors. A total of 29 539 individual plants were growing on the mowed portion of the gravel shoulder of a dirt road 30 alongside a canal. It is estimated that 1,000 individual plants could occur at this location, and 31 sand flax is also suspected to occur within a pine rockland between SW 300 and 304 Streets 32 along the West transmission-line corridor (FPL 2009-TN657). It also occurs in Homestead 33 Bayfront Park, which is less than 1 mi north of the Turkey Point site boundary (FNAI 2000- 34 TN139). It was not observed within any of the other proposed project areas offsite, but ground 35 surveys for plants were not conducted at these locations.

36 4.26 Carter’s Small-Flowered Flax

37 Carter’s small-flowered flax (Linum carteri var. carteri) is a Federally endangered forb found in 38 pine rocklands of Miami Rock Ridge in Miami-Dade County (79 FR 52567) (TN4068). It is 39 closely associated with recent ground disturbance in areas with little overstory or shading. It co- 40 occurs closely with the Florida brickell-bush. It is currently limited to seven widely spaced

4-17 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 populations in suitable habitats between Pinecrest and Naranja/Modello. Carter’s small- 2 flowered flax was not observed during surveys of the proposed transmission-line corridors, but 3 virtually all of the parcels designated as critical habitat for the Florida brickell-bush are also 4 designated critical habitat for Carter’s small-flowered flax (79 FR 41211) (TN3725). This 5 includes the Sunny Palms and King’s Highway pinelands along or within the proposed West 6 transmission-line corridors, and the pineland habitat at the Gold Coast Railroad Museum Park 7 that borders the proposed East transmission-line corridor.

8 4.27 Tiny Polygala

9 The tiny polygala (Polygala smallii) is Federally endangered (FWS 2012-TN117). It is a short- 10 lived forb. The only known populations of this species occur in sand pockets of pine rocklands, 11 open sand pine scrub, slash pine, high pines, and well-drained coastal spoil. Within these 12 habitats it requires high light levels and open sand with little to no organic litter. As of 2010, 13 there were only eight known populations of tiny polygala (FWS 2010-TN2606) and four of these 14 sites are in Miami-Dade County. Although none of these sites is within the Turkey Point site 15 boundary and suitable pine rockland habitat is not present in the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant 16 area, FPL noted the tiny polygala was observed in the vicinity of the Turkey Point site 17 (FPL 2011-TN1374). It has not been observed during surveys of selected pine rockland 18 fragments within the transmission-line corridors. No plant surveys were conducted within the 19 reclaimed or potable water pipeline corridors. Land-cover information indicates suitable habitat 20 for the tiny polygala is likely not present within these project areas.

21 4.28 Everglades Bully

22 A Federally listed candidate species within Miami-Dade County (FWS 2012-TN117), the 23 Everglades bully (Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense) is a thorny shrub that is 24 endemic to Miami-Dade County. It is found in marl prairie and pine rockland habitats, and in 25 several conservation areas to the west of the Turkey Point site as well as in Everglades National 26 Park (Gann et al. 2012-TN137). The Everglades bully was not observed growing in the Turkey 27 Point property vicinity or within selected pine rockland habitats within the proposed transmission 28 corridors. Land-cover classification information indicates pine rockland habitat suitable for this 29 species is not present in other areas potentially affected by the project.

30 .

31 4.29 Florida Bristle Fern

32 The Florida bristle fern (Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum) is a Federal candidate species 33 within Miami-Dade County (FWS 2012-TN117; FNAI 2014-TN3668). It is found in rockland 34 hammocks, sinkhole habitats (Gann et al. 2012-TN137), and on tree trunks that are in deep 35 shade (NatureServe 2010-TN140). It has been documented in eight conservation areas in 36 Miami-Dade County and it also occurs in Everglades National Park (Gann et al. 2012-TN137). 37 The Florida bristle fern has not been observed within the proposed transmission-line corridors 38 and habitat maps suggest that potentially suitable habitat is unlikely in other areas potentially 39 affected by the project

4-18 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 5.0 Potential Environmental Effects of the Proposed Actions

2 This section describes the potential impacts from construction and operation of the proposed 3 Units 6 and 7, including offsite facilities, on the species presented in Table 1-1.

4 5.1 Florida Bonneted Bat

5 Development of lands within the Turkey Point site, including clearing and building up of the 6 proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area, access road construction and improvements, construction of 7 the water treatment facility, and installation of the RCWs would result in the removal of more 8 than 1,300 trees, including almost 550 trees of various palm species (FPL 2011-TN1471). 9 There are no buildings with Spanish tile roofs that provide roosting habitat for Florida bonneted 10 bats on the Turkey Point site. It is possible that Florida bonneted bats may roost in one or more 11 of the other palm trees that would be removed during ground clearing. The occurrence of 12 Florida bonneted bats at any of the proposed onsite and offsite work areas, including 13 transmission-line and pipeline corridors, is also possible. However, the FFWCC requires that 14 FPL conduct surveys to determine the occurrence of listed species before conducting any 15 ground-clearing activities (FFWCC 2011-TN554). The scarcity of Florida bonneted bats makes 16 it highly unlikely that they occur at any of the proposed facility locations. The relative ease of 17 detection of this bat species via auditory surveys and the requirements for conducting surveys 18 for listed species before ground-clearing activities would ensure an opportunity to implement 19 preventative measures, BMPs, and compensatory mitigation if Florida bonneted bats are 20 detected. Therefore, the construction and operation of Units 6 and 7, the construction and 21 maintenance of associated facilities including transmission-line corridors, the offsite construction 22 and operation activities such as the reclaimed or potable water pipelines and the operation of 23 Units 6 and 7 may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Florida bonneted bat and its 24 continued existence would not be jeopardized. If bats are present at the time of land clearing, 25 surveys required by state and federal agencies at that time can be expected to establish their 26 presence and form the basis for appropriate mitigation.

27 5.2 Florida Panther

28 No habitat suitable for the Florida panther exists on the Turkey Point site, including the 29 proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area, therefore their presence onsite would be highly unlikely. The 30 construction of new transmission facilities, including removal of vegetation to modify existing 31 corridors and the construction of new access roads, would alter Florida panther habitat within 32 panther management zones. The Clear Sky-to-Levee corridor would border or pass through 33 Florida panther primary and secondary management zones within the Florida Panther Focus 34 Area, including approximately 5.75 mi of proposed road improvements. These road 35 improvements would permanently alter and further fragment panther habitat. This would result 36 in a potential loss of approximately 69 ac of panther habitat worth 412 panther habitat units 37 using the FWS standardized methodology for determining habitat value (FPL 2011-TN1283). 38 Offsite construction and operation activities could also temporarily displace nearby panthers into 39 suboptimal habitats, causing indirect habitat loss. Increased traffic from construction, including 40 the hauling of fill material from existing offsite rock mines and transportation of personnel

5-1 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 working at the Turkey Point site, could also increase the likelihood of mortality by collision with 2 vehicles on roads.

3 The FFWCC requires FPL to institute measures that would lower the likelihood of construction 4 impacts on the panther. FPL has included these measures as part of the State of Florida 5 proceedings in a proposed conservation plan for the Florida panther. Conservation measures 6 include wildlife protection fencing of temporary construction access roadways, construction of a 7 6 ft box culvert wildlife underpass, reduced speed limits on temporary construction and 8 transmission-line access roads, and wildlife training for all construction personnel to reduce the 9 likelihood of collision mortality (FPL 2011-TN1283). Roads widened for construction of 10 proposed Units 6 and 7 would be returned to their previous widths after construction. Mitigation 11 has also been proposed for 1,030 habitat units after applying the FWS mitigation ratio of 2.5:1 12 for panther habitat. However, all of these mitigation actions would not preclude habitat loss or 13 fragmentation and would likely not reduce increased risk of panther vehicle collision mortality 14 from hauling of fill. Consequently the construction and operation of Units 6 and 7, the 15 construction and maintenance of associated facilities including transmission-line corridors, 16 offsite construction and operation activities such as the reclaimed or potable water pipelines, 17 and increased collision mortality rates from increased traffic related to construction and 18 operation of Units 6 and 7 may affect the Florida panther. Although conservation measures and 19 habitat mitigation have been proposed, habitat would be degraded and the Florida panther 20 could be adversely affected by the proposed actions. However the conservation measures 21 proposed by the applicant as mitigation would serve to offset the adverse effects on the species 22 and the Florida panther would not be jeopardized by the proposed actions.

23 5.3 Florida Manatee

24 Expansion of the existing equipment barge-unloading area and excavation and limited dredging 25 in the area could result in temporary water-quality impacts and loss or alteration of manatee 26 habitat. Only about 0.1 ac would be lost to dredging. In addition, construction noise or vibration 27 during dredging activities and percussive sound related to sheet pile installation could cause 28 direct injury, temporary displacement of manatee, and short-term habitat degradation. As noted 29 by FPL, sheet pile installation will occur over a two-week period. Manatee may also be affected 30 by vibration from microtunneling activities associated with installation of RCW laterals beneath 31 Biscayne Bay.

32 A number of studies have investigated the hearing sensitivity of the manatee. Work by Gerstein 33 et al. (1999-TN3426) found the upper limit of hearing in the Florida manatee (Trichechus 34 manatus) is about 46 kHz, with peak frequency sensitivity at 16 and 18 kHz (50 dB, 1μPa), and 35 best hearing in the 6−20 kHz range. The authors suggest that inadequate hearing sensitivity at 36 low frequencies could be a contributing factor to manatee’s inability to detect boat traffic and 37 avoid collisions. With regard to anthropogenic noise effects on this species, work by Miksis- 38 Olds et al. (2007-TN3428) and Miksis-Olds and Tyack (2009-TN3427) suggests that manatees 39 may change foraging habits in response to the presence of boats, marine construction, and 40 coastal dredging noise sources, and alter their vocalizations in response to environmental noise 41 levels.

5-2 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Noise related to construction activities could also adversely affect marine mammals near the 2 area. As described in (FPL 2014-TN4058), the highest levels of construction noise on land 3 would be from impact wrenches, cranes, backhoes, front-end loaders, trucks, bulldozers, and 4 the concrete batch plant. FPL estimates aerial noise levels to be 85 dBA 3 ft from the source, 5 75 dBA 200 ft from the source, and 65 dBA 400 ft from the source, all of which are within the 6 range of current ambient noise levels measured by FPL (FPL 2014-TN4058). Thus, marine 7 mammals transiting near the Turkey Point peninsula would likely receive minimal exposure to 8 aerial building noise.

9 The potential for noise and vibrations from in-water or nearshore construction activities to affect 10 marine mammals is discussed in FPL 2014-TN3717. Noise or vibration-producing activities that 11 could affect manatee included 1) pulsed sound associated with sheet pile installation in the 12 equipment barge-unloading area, 2) continuous sound and vibrations related to construction of 13 the RCW laterals using microtunneling technology, and 3) site preparation and construction of 14 plant infrastructure and RCW caissons. Numerical models and other sources of information 15 were used to calculate impact radii corresponding to the threshold for auditory injury (180 dB 16 RMS) and behavioral response changes (160 dB RMS). For sheet pile installation at the 17 equipment barge-unloading area, predicted noise levels at the installation location are 220 dB 18 peak pressure and 194 dB cumulative sound exposure. This information suggests that auditory 19 injury to manatee is possible at a distance of 131 ft from the sheet pile installation site and 20 behavioral responses could occur up to 607 ft from the site (FPL 2014-TN3717). While FPL 21 acknowledges these exposure levels could result in adverse impacts on manatee, its 22 assumption is that risk is low because both species are rarely seen in the equipment barge- 23 unloading area and entrance channel, and construction would occur for only 2 weeks. Although 24 dredging activities would not cause harmful levels of noise, temporary and localized increases in 25 suspended sediment and turbidity are likely but would not adversely affect this species. As 26 described in FPL 2014-TN4058, construction activities would occur during daylight hours and 27 would use a spotter to identify and alert workers and halt construction when there is confirmed 28 presence of manatees in the area to ensure protection during construction. As noted in 29 FPL 2014-TN3717, site-preparation activities associated with RCW installation on the Turkey 30 Point peninsula would generate aerial noise, but are not expected to produce sounds in water 31 that would adversely affect marine mammals.

32 RCW lateral installation would occur over a 2- to 4-year period, but laterals would be drilled 33 sequentially and noise and vibration effects would be attenuated, given the proposed location of 34 the RCW laterals is 25 to 40 ft below the bottom of Biscayne Bay (FPL 2014-TN3717). 35 Manatees may temporarily leave an area where building noise, vibration, and vessel traffic are 36 present. The FFWCC (2011-TN554) has also provided specific guidance for protection of 37 manatees during in-water work that is consistent with the SCA (FPL 2009-TN169). Given the 38 above precautions, building-related activities are not expected to result in adverse impacts on 39 the manatee. No adverse modifications of manatee critical habitat are expected because no 40 detectable changes in water quality in Card Sound are anticipated.

41 Increased barge and tug traffic related to plant construction activities could affect this species, 42 but adverse effects would likely not result in a “take” of this species if the procedures outlined in 43 FPL’s Barge Delivery Plan are followed (FPL 2009-TN169). The plan supplements existing 44 operational policies and procedures in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard requirements for fuel

5-3 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 oil delivery, and requires notification of the FFWCC and FWS if a collision with an/or injury to a 2 manatee occurs. Given the potential for increased collision risk, and the likelihood that 3 anthropogenic noise would likely cause manatees near the Turkey Point facility to leave the 4 area during active construction periods, the review team concludes that construction activity in 5 support of proposed Units 6 and 7 may affect, but would likely not adversely affect this species.

6 Operational impacts on the Florida manatee are not expected to occur because conventional 7 water-intake and discharge structures are not required, and cooling-tower blowdown would be 8 discharged into the Boulder Zone via deep-injection wells. Although cooling-tower drift could 9 result in chemical or salt deposition on aquatic communities, atmospheric modeling predicts the 10 plume trajectory would be primarily to the south and west over the IWF, suggesting exposure of 11 manatee is highly unlikely. Based on the decision by FPL to place Units 1 and 2 in synchronous 12 condenser mode, it is likely that routine deliveries of fuel oil would decrease or cease entirely. 13 Thus, because existing species management plans for in-water work described by FPL (2012- 14 TN1618) would be used during the construction phase, adverse impacts on manatee near the 15 Turkey Point site are expected to be minimal, though some disturbance of individuals is possible 16 in areas where dredging or barge and tug operations occur. Operational impacts are also 17 expected to be minimal because the proposed cooling system does not require a conventional 18 intake or discharge system. Thus, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely 19 affect, manatee near the Turkey Point facility.

20 5.4 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow

21 Distribution and habitat preferences would exclude the Cape Sable seaside sparrow 22 (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis) from occurring at all proposed project locations. Thus, there 23 would be no effect to the Cape Sable seaside sparrow from the proposed actions.

24 5.5 Rufa Red Knot

25 Potential environmental effects on the rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) on the Turkey Point 26 site are limited. Construction of proposed Units 6 and 7 could permanently eliminate mudflat 27 habitat potentially suitable as rufa red knot roosting habitat and foraging habitat during 28 migration. Increased human presence during construction and operations could also exclude 29 rufa red knots from adjacent habitats thereby decreasing their value. However, habitats 30 occurring within Miami-Dade County do not appear to be highly valuable to rufa red knots 31 (Sprandel et al. 2000-TN3203), so individuals would not be expected to occur frequently or in 32 large numbers. Therefore, the proposed actions may affect but are not likely to adversely affect 33 the rufa red knot.

34 5.6 Piping Plover

35 The construction of Units 6 and 7 could permanently eliminate 182 ac of mudflat suitable as 36 piping plover (Charadrius melodus) wintering habitat. Other nearby wetland habitats that may 37 also be suitable for the piping plover could also be permanently or temporarily affected during 38 construction and operation. However, the annual occurrence of wintering piping plovers along 39 the entire Atlantic Coast of South Florida is usually much less than 100 individuals (Elliot-Smith 40 et al. 2009-TN3296). Furthermore, lands on the Turkey Point site have not been identified as

5-4 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 important piping plover wintering habitat. Therefore, the proposed actions may effect but are 2 not likely to adversely affect the piping plover.

3 5.7 Wood Stork

4 Environmental effects on the wood stork on the Turkey Point site are limited. Construction and 5 operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 could displace individual wood storks foraging and roosting 6 on the Units 6 and 7 plant area. Wetlands suitable for foraging would be permanently lost as 7 foraging habitat during initial ground-clearing activities.

8 Offsite activities would also affect storks, because the installation of a portion of the proposed 9 transmission lines would occur within 1 mi of two active wood stork colonies and within 3 mi of 10 two other colonies. The transmission lines would also bisect the 18.6 mi CFA of nine wood 11 stork colonies. Wood storks have been injured or killed as a result of colliding with or being 12 electrocuted by contacting FPL electric utility structures (FPL 2011-TN1283), and the FWS 13 recommends that transmission lines not be built within 1 mi of stork nest colonies to lower the 14 probability of low-flying stork strikes. The FFWCC requires FPL to conduct flight surveys of the 15 two known wood stork nesting colonies to determine the flight corridors of fledging wood storks 16 before and after transmission-line installation (FPL 2011-TN1283). FPL would also have to 17 conduct pre-clearing aerial surveys of transmission-line corridors if wading bird nesting occurs 18 within 0.5 mi of proposed transmission-line corridors. Ground surveys of active colonies would 19 also be required. FFWCC also requires flight diverters on overhead ground wires of each 20 transmission line from 0.5 mi south of the Tamiami Trail wood stork colonies to 0.5 mi north of 21 the other wood stork colony (FPL 2011-TN1283). Perch discouragers are required on pole tops 22 and arms and FPL has agreed to install both flight diverters and perch discouragers on 23 transmission structures to reduce potential collision mortality (FPL 2011-TN1283). FPL would 24 also have to conduct post-building monitoring during the breeding season after transmission-line 25 installation near wood stork colonies. Monitoring would include carcass searches and flight 26 behavior observation, and further mitigation may be warranted (FPL 2011-TN1283). The 27 presence of wetlands within the reclaimed and potable water corridors indicates suitable 28 foraging and roosting habitat may be present. Habitat would be both temporarily and 29 permanently altered by the development of these facilities.

30 Thus, the construction and operation of Units 6 and 7; construction, operation, and maintenance 31 of the proposed transmission-line corridors; and construction of the reclaimed and potable water 32 pipelines are likely to adversely affect the wood stork. FPL proposed to evaluate the loss of 33 wood stork foraging habitat within designated wood stork CFAs with FWS guidance (FPL 2011- 34 TN1283). FPL also proposed to compensate for wetland impacts within wood stork CFAs 35 through mitigation that would provide equal or greater foraging habitat value (FPL 2011- 36 TN1283). Additional monitoring and mitigation may be required by the FWS or the State of 37 Florida. Although the wood stork is likely to be adversely affected, because the FFWCC and 38 likely the FWS would require FPL to conduct research to evaluate the impacts of construction 39 and operation of Units 6 and 7 and mitigate for those impacts, the proposed activities would not 40 jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

5-5 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 5.8 Everglade Snail Kite

2 Suitable habitat for the Everglade snail kite is not present on the Turkey Point site and 3 development there would not be expected to affect snail kites. Suitable freshwater habitat is 4 present within the proposed West Preferred transmission-line corridor. Snail kites were 5 observed foraging there and nesting and are believed to be nesting nearby, so displacement of 6 individual snail kites as well as alteration and loss of habitat would result from building the Clear 7 Sky-to-Levee corridor. Siltation could also degrade wetlands although BMPs would be used to 8 limit siltation. Alteration of surface-water flow from road or transmission-line construction could 9 degrade suitable marsh habitat by allowing overhead woody cover to establish or become more 10 prevalent. Snail kites spend a majority of daylight hours perching (Beissinger 1983-TN2383). 11 The limited wingspan (42 in.) of Everglade snail kites would not span the closest gap (120 in.) 12 between 230 kV wires and preclude electrocution while perched on transmission structures. 13 Snail kite foraging flights typically occur about 3 to 5 m above marsh vegetation (Beissinger 14 1983-TN2383), well below the estimated 80 to 90 ft above ground elevation of 230 kV 15 transmission lines. Flights to and from the nest, between perches, and during territorial defense 16 could occur at the heights of the transmission wires, but snail kites typically only spend 6 17 percent of daylight hours engaged in these activities. In addition, they are agile flyers and would 18 not be expected to collide often with power transmission structures. If the Clear Sky-to-Levee 19 preferred corridor is developed, these impacts would be limited to the 7 mi section that borders 20 suitable habitat near and within Everglades National Park. Development of the potable water 21 corridor could result in loss of a small amount of sawgrass marsh. It is doubtful the snail kite 22 would be affected by development of the water corridors. Therefore, the project is likely to 23 adversely affect the Everglade snail kite. However, these activities in addition to all of the other 24 proposed activities would not jeopardize the continued existence of the Everglade snail kite.

25 5.9 Roseate Tern

26 The roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) would not be affected by the proposed actions 27 because this species is not expected to occur at any of the proposed project locations.

28 5.10 American Crocodile

29 Construction of the reactor power block and existing structures on land adjacent to existing 30 crocodile breeding and nesting habitat in the IWF would result in the permanent loss of 31 approximately 270 ac of designated critical habitat, and would have adverse effects on 32 approximately 211 ac of critical habitat within the IWF for disposal of muck. Aquatic species 33 inhabiting the IWF, including crocodile and their prey, may also be affected by site dewatering 34 releases into the IWF, noise, light, vibration associated with construction activities, and the 35 potential for increased vehicular traffic to increase the risk of fatal or non-fatal collisions with 36 American crocodiles present on the site. Because a conventional surface-water intake structure 37 is not required for the proposed cooling system, and blowdown water will be discharged into 38 deep aquifer formations, the operational effects on this species, if present, would be related to 39 cooling-tower deposition.

5-6 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 5.10.1 Impacts on Critical Habitat From Power Block Construction

2 Construction of the power block for proposed Units 6 and 7 would require excavation and 3 construction in areas adjacent to the northeastern portion of the IWF, resulting in the permanent 4 loss of approximately 270 ac of critical habitat. Although this action would result in loss of this of 5 critical habitat, American crocodiles do not routinely occupy the proposed plant area for Units 6 6 and 7, and no nesting activity has been observed on the plant area. Based on information 7 provided in by FPL (2012-TN1618), existing habitat at the Units 6 and 7 plant area includes 8 mangrove swamps/heads, non-vegetated mud flats, and remnant canals. This area is believed 9 to be low-quality habitat for crocodiles; historical monitoring data indicate occasional 10 observations of basking crocodiles and no use of the site for nesting (FPL 2012-TN1618). 11 Nesting has been observed, however, at the northernmost part of the IWF return canals 12 adjacent to the proposed plant area (Figure 4-3, Figure 4-4). Thus, the likelihood for a “take” 13 exists, but would likely be minimized if, during construction, FPL follows approved protocols and 14 procedures to ensure crocodiles are not directly affected by construction activities. As 15 previously noted, construction activities on the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area would likely 16 result in crocodiles avoiding the area, and this avoidance response could be construed as a 17 take under ESA with regard to harassment, whether it is intentional or not. Construction 18 activities at the Units 6 and 7 plant area are unlikely to place resident American crocodiles in 19 jeopardy, because even the unintentional take or death of a few individuals or the elimination of 20 the marginal site habitat would not noticeably affect the existing population or jeopardize the 21 continued existence of the species.

22 Based on an estimate of total crocodile terrestrial critical habitat designated in South Florida of 23 293,099 ac, as shown in Figure 4-2, the permanent loss of 270 ac at the proposed Units 6 and 7 24 plant area represents approximately 0.09 percent of the total terrestrial critical habitat available. 25 As stated above, FPL’s monitoring information suggests that the proposed plant area is 26 generally considered to be low-quality habitat and is not actively used by crocodiles.

27 5.10.2 Impacts of Muck Disposal

28 As described in Section 5.0, muck excavated from the Units 6 and 7 plant area would be 29 deposited along selected berm walls in the IWF. During construction activities, approximately 30 1.8 million yd3 of muck from the proposed Units 6 and 7 power block excavation would be 31 permanently stored in designated spoils areas encompassing approximately 200 ac within the 32 IWF (Figure 3-1). Spoils would be put in a trench with a berm to prevent sediment runoff into 33 the IWF (FPL 2011-TN1042). This is expected to reduce or eliminate the sediment loading from 34 the muck spoils mound into the IWF. The areas chosen for disposal have been previously 35 disturbed and are not considered by FPL to be optimum habitat for crocodiles. Because these 36 berms are also within the critical habitat footprint, the action would result in adverse effects to 37 this habitat. Based on the total terrestrial critical habitat estimate of 293,099 ac, the effects on 38 211 ac related to the disposal of muck along IWF berm walls would represent approximately 39 0.07 percent of the total terrestrial critical habitat available. Compliance with procedures 40 described in FPL’s species protection plans would reduce the potential for direct mortality, but 41 disposal activities could constitute harm if resident crocodiles avoid disposal areas or areas 42 adjacent to these locations. Muck disposal could also affect nesting activity in this area, but 43 monitoring information suggests nesting is uncommon in this area (Figure 3-1). Another

5-7 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 potential impact of muck disposal would be nutrient loading to the IWF from muck dewatering 2 over time. To determine the extent and magnitude of this potential stressor, the review team 3 used the water and mass balance methods described in Section 4.2.1.4 of the NRC EIS, 4 NUREG-2176 to calculate the concentrations of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and total 5 phosphorus (TP) within the cooling canals from pore-water drainage of the muck piles. To 6 compute the mass balance, the review team first calculated a water balance using the cooling- 7 canal storage information from the Cooling Canal System Modeling Report (Golder 2008- 8 TN1072) and the FPL 2012 Uprate Report (FPL 2012-TN3439). The water balance data from 9 the FPL 2012 Uprate was averaged by month and repeated over a 9-year period to provide 10 inflows and outflows to the cooling canals for use in the mass balance calculations. Using the 11 computed TKN and TP loads to the cooling canals, the review team computed the maximum 12 incremental concentration increase from pore-water drainage into the cooling canals would be 13 8.6 µg/L for TKN and 0.29 µg/L for TP. The incremental concentration decreased following the 14 end of the pre-construction period when the pore-water discharge to the IWF ceased. Although 15 the nutrient additions to the IWF would be small during the dewatering period, it is possible the 16 additional nitrogen and phosphorus may augment the existing phytoplankton resources present. 17 Because this water is used to provide cooling to the existing Units 3 and 4, it is assumed the 18 transport through the cooling system would completely kill or significantly reduce any additional 19 phytoplankton present, reducing the possibility of increased prevalence of phytoplankton blooms 20 resulting from nutrient runoff associated with muck disposal.

21 Thus, although adverse effects on habitat would occur at muck disposal areas, the potential for 22 a take or for the action to jeopardize the continued existence of American crocodiles would be 23 small.

24 5.10.3 Impacts of Dewatering Discharges

25 Dewatering of the site during construction would result in a maximum discharge to the cooling 26 canals of 1,200 gpm. The 1,200 gpm (1.7 Mgd) maximum discharge is small compared to the 27 4,200-million-gallon volume of the IWF. Also, according to FPL (2014-TN4058), the 28 recirculating water from existing Units 1 through 4 is 2,747 Mgd, so the maximum dewatering 29 discharge is approximately 0.06 percent of the recirculating water. Consequently, construction- 30 related discharges would have an undetectable effect on IWF water quality, and adverse 31 impacts on the American crocodile or its prey would be unlikely.

32 5.10.4 Impacts of Noise, Light, and Vibration

33 Noise, light, and vibrations related to the construction of Units 6 and 7 and the RWTF have the 34 potential to disturb crocodiles that occur near these areas. These types of disturbances may 35 interrupt courting activity, change nesting distribution patterns, or cause animals to avoid certain 36 portions of the IWF and surrounding area. Under ESA Section 9, these types of disruptions 37 would likely be classified as harassment, which is defined as activities that disrupt normal 38 behavior patterns, which include breeding, feeding, or sheltering. As described by FPL 39 (FPL 2014-TN4058), the highest levels of construction noise on land would be from impact 40 wrenches, cranes, backhoes, front-end loaders, trucks, bulldozers, and the concrete batch 41 plant. FPL estimates aerial noise levels to be 85 dBA 3 ft from the source, 75 dBA 200 ft from 42 the source, and 65 dBA 400 ft from the source, all of which are within the range of current

5-8 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 ambient noise levels measured by FPL (2014-TN4058). Because only a small percentage of 2 crocodile nests have been observed at the northern end of the IWF, the effects of construction- 3 related noise, light, and vibration are expected to be minimal, but would likely cause some 4 individuals to relocate to suitable habitat available in other parts of the IWF. Percussive sound 5 related to sheet pile installation around the perimeter of the Unit 6 and 7 site may also cause 6 individuals to leave the area. FPL has indicated sheet pile construction activities would last 7 approximately 2 weeks (FPL 2014-TN3717). Installation of the RCW system on the Turkey 8 Point peninsula would be another source of noise and vibration. Based on an analysis 9 conducted by FPL contractors and presented in (FPL 2014-TN3717), installation of RCW 10 laterals using microtunneling technology would generate a maximum of 120 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m 11 from the drill head, which would be located 25 to 40 ft below the bottom of Biscayne Bay, and 12 would dissipate as it moved upward through the limestone and bottom sediments. These sound 13 emissions are below thresholds expected to cause auditory injury or behavioral responses in 14 fish, and would be unlikely to affect crocodiles, given the distance of the construction activity 15 from the IWF, and the expected sound dissipation.

16 To mitigate construction-related impacts on American crocodiles, FPL has indicated it would 17 conduct weekly monitoring surveys within the construction zone and daily monitoring surveys in 18 active zones. If crocodiles were observed in these areas, construction work would cease until 19 individuals could be captured and relocated in the IWF away from the activity (FPL 2012- 20 TN1618). The review team assumes appropriate capture and relocation activities would be 21 described in the BO (Biological Opinion) developed by FWS as part of the consultation process.

22 5.10.5 Impacts of Vehicular Collisions

23 In Section 4.3.1.1.2 of ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058), FPL acknowledges that increased 24 vehicle traffic could pose a risk to crocodiles, especially along 359th Street, an area scheduled 25 for roadway improvements to support building activities. Deaths occurring in 2005−2006 on 26 Turkey Point site resulted in increased signage warning drivers to watch for crocodiles on the 27 roads at all times and to observe posted speed limits, and FPL maintains an ongoing training 28 program to instruct contractors in safe practices. Recent deaths occurred on November 18, 29 2011 and July 25, 2014. The November 2011 death involved a young crocodile found onsite in 30 the vicinity of the current work on the exploratory Underground Injection Control well. The 31 cause of death was determined to be physical trauma (NRC 2011-TN4121). The 2014 death 32 involved an adult crocodile discovered inside the intake well for Units 3 and 4 within the IWF. 33 Based on visual evidence of no physical injury or trauma, the crocodile's death was not 34 attributed to plant operations (NRC 2014-TN3718). In both cases, the FWS and the FFWCC 35 were notified. As described in its 2011 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation and 36 Management Plan, FPL proposes to install wildlife underpasses on the road between the 37 northern end of the IWF and test canals to the west of the IWF to mitigate onsite collision 38 hazards (FPL 2011-TN1283).

39 5.10.6 Impacts of Cooling-Tower Deposition

40 The use of reclaimed water as a cooling source eliminates the potential for impingement or 41 entrainment of aquatic species during the operation of proposed Units 6 and 7, but it may result 42 in adverse effects from cooling-tower deposition of chemicals present in Miami-Dade reclaimed

5-9 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 water after final treatment. As previously described, the total cooling-tower drift rate for both 2 units is expected to be 8 gpm, including 7 gpm for the circulating-water system and 1 gpm for 3 the service-water system (FPL 2014-TN4058). Because cooling-tower drift is expected to be 4 confined primarily to the IWF, potential effects on the threatened American crocodile could 5 occur if chemical loading was sufficient to directly affect adults or juveniles, or indirectly affect 6 this species through alteration of the food web present in the system.

7 To assess the potential impact, the review team performed a screening-level assessment that 8 compared the expected concentrations of priority pollutants and CECs in reclaimed water after 9 processing to State of Florida water-quality criteria or appropriate toxicological data, if numerical 10 criteria were unavailable. As described in Section 3.0, the screening-level assessment process 11 generally followed the guidance provided by the National Research Council (1983-TN2573) and 12 included organic compounds, metals, and CECs. A number of sources of information were 13 used to determine the potential concentrations in reclaimed water (FPL 2012-TN263; Lietz and 14 Meyer 2006-TN1005; Miami-Dade County 2011-TN1006). Expected chemical concentrations 15 derived from these sources of information were compared to State or Federal water-quality 16 criteria, when available, or to toxicological effects available from the EPA’s ECOTOX database 17 (EPA 2012-TN1525). Work by Brausch and Rand (2011-TN1002) was also used to assess the 18 toxicological effects of CECs, because water-quality criteria have not been established for many 19 of these chemicals. When toxicological benchmarks were used, no-observed effects 20 concentrations (NOECs) were chosen for sensitive, representative aquatic species to provide a 21 conservative assessment. When possible, NOECs for mortality of the water flea (Daphnia 22 magna) were used as a toxicological benchmark, because this species has been used 23 extensively to support water-quality studies. As described above, for chemicals with established 24 water-quality criteria, those present in reclaimed water above limits considered protective of 25 aquatic resources were retained in the screening-level assessment and evaluated for fate and 26 effects. For chemicals without established water-quality criteria, including most CECs, those 27 present at >1/10 of a toxicological benchmark chosen by the review team to be protective of 28 aquatic resources were included in fate-and-effects evaluations.

29 Fate-and-effects modeling results for the 10 chemicals retained in the screening-level 30 assessment are presented in Table 5-1 and suggest that adverse effects on American crocodile 31 and its prey are highly unlikely, because predicted contaminant concentrations in IWF water are

32 Table 5-1. Comparison of Predicted Concentrations of Chemicals from Cooling-Tower 33 Deposition During Reclaimed Water Use to Analytical Method Detection 34 Limits and Toxicological Criteria or Benchmarks

Maximum Incremental Increases of Method Environmental Concentration Detection Criteria or in Cooling Limit Benchmark Endpoint Chemical Name Description Canals (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) and Species 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Insect repellant 0.00070 0.1 0.7 EC50 Immobilization Daphnia magna 3 beta-coprostanol Human digestion 0.0011 0.52 0.04 Unspecified marker

5-10 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

4-Nonylphenol Detergent 0.0022 0.64 0.01 LOEC metabolite Gene expression Danio rerio Acetyl-hexamethyl- Musk compound 0.0022 0.08 7.2 EC10 tetrahydro-naphthalene Development (AHTN) Acartia tonsa Hexahydrohexamethyl- Musk compound 0.00027 0.12 11.0 NOEC cyclopentabenzopyran Growth, survival (HHCB) Daphnia magna Phenanthrene Polycyclic 0.00032 0.08 0.125 NOEC aromatic Growth compound Daphnia magna Warfarin Pharmaceutical 0.000064 0.012 0.288 EC50 Immobilization Daphnia magna 17 beta-estradiol (E2) Hormone 0.000019 2 0.0004 NOEC Morphology Oryzias latipes Triclosan Antibiotic 0.060 Unknown 0.2 NOEC Growth Pseudokirch- neriella subcapitata Copper Heavy metal 0.0052 6.0 4.8 EPA Aquatic Life Criteria, Saltwater EC50 = median effective concentration (required to induce a 50 percent effect). LOEC = lowest observed effect concentration. NOEC = no-observed effects concentration.

1 much lower than the toxicological benchmarks used in the screening-level assessment and 2 orders of magnitude below current analytical method detection limits. When reclaimed water is 3 used for cooling, the highest salt deposition occurs over the IWF and is estimated to be 0.0287 4 g/m2/mo (0.287 kg/ha/mo). When Biscayne Bay seawater is used for cooling, salt deposition 5 into the IWF is estimated to be 0.5079 g/m2/mo (5.079 kg/ha/mo). As a point of reference, 6 NUREG−1555 indicates 1−2 kg/ha/mo is generally not damaging to terrestrial plants, and rates 7 approaching or exceeding 10 kg/ha/mo in any month during the growing season could cause 8 leaf damage in many species (NRC 2000-TN614). As previously noted, the FDEP has stated 9 that FPL “shall be authorized to operate the RCW system up to sixty (60) days and withdraw a 10 maximum volume of 7,465 MG in any consecutive twelve (12) month period [equivalent to sixty 11 (60) days at full capacity of 124.416 MGD]” (FDEP 2013-TN2583). Based on the modeling 12 results, salt deposition would not noticeably change the existing salinity in the IWF or 13 freshwater crocodile refugia ponds within or in the vicinity of the IWF. Because chemical or salt 14 loading would occur in the IWF and all fate-and-effects modeling contains inherent uncertainties 15 related to the assumptions and modeling rigor, it is not possible to conclude that cooling-tower 16 deposition would result in no effects on American crocodile juveniles or adults residing in the 17 IWF. Thus based on best available information, the review team concludes that cooling-tower 18 drift while using reclaimed water for cooling may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the 19 American crocodile population inhabiting the IWF. Because the deposition rate for the cooling- 20 tower drift drops off considerably with distance from the towers the impact on crocodiles offsite 21 would be even less.

5-11 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Based on the above assessments, there is a potential for some construction-related activities to 2 adversely affect the American crocodile, primarily because many of the activities would occur at 3 or near areas frequented by the crocodiles or near areas where nesting has been observed. In 4 addition, construction-related activities would adversely affect existing, mostly low quality, 5 critical habitat at the site. Operational impacts are expected to be minimal, because the 6 proposed cooling-water system would not require a conventional intake or discharge, and 7 deposition of salt and chemicals is expected present minimal risk. Thus, the proposed action 8 may affect and is likely to adversely affect resident American crocodiles primarily during the 9 construction phase by increasing the potential for a vehicular encounter and by discouraging 10 normal visitation or nesting in the northern end of the IWF.

11 5.11 Eastern Indigo Snake

12 Eastern indigo snakes are vulnerable to mortality during ground-clearing, power block 13 construction, infrastructure installation, muck disposal, and other activities that require off-road 14 use of vehicles. They are particularly vulnerable because they spend a considerable amount of 15 time underground and out of sight. Ground-clearing activities using off-road vehicles would 16 precede construction of Units 6 and 7, installation of transmission lines, and building of the 17 reclaimed water and potable water pipelines. Muck disposal could bury eastern indigo snakes if 18 they are burrowing within the existing artificial uplands within the IWF. Increased traffic during 19 construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 could increase eastern indigo snake mortality 20 caused by vehicle collision near and on the site.

21 Although critical habitat has not been designated for the eastern indigo snake, the FWS has 22 required FPL to adhere to standardized protection measures for the eastern indigo snake. 23 These measures include implementing a snake protection plan (FPL 2011-TN1283) that would 24 include education of construction personnel to limit impacts and provide a reporting protocol for 25 indigo snake observations and takes (FWS 2004-TN779). FPL has proposed to install fencing 26 along construction access roads, control traffic, and educate all construction personnel about 27 how to identify protected species including the eastern indigo snake. Personnel would be 28 instructed to stop work and notify FPL environmental managers if an indigo snake is observed 29 within a work area. Informational signage in compliance with the FWS standard protection 30 measures would also be posted along access roads (FPL 2011-TN1012). Although they are 31 present and suitable habitat exists at each of the proposed project areas, FPL’s standardized 32 protection measures would limit effects on this species. Therefore, the construction and 33 operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 and all of the associated facilities, including transmission 34 system and water pipelines may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the eastern indigo 35 snake and would not affect the continued existence of the species.

36 5.12 Florida Leafwing Butterfly

37 Surveys to determine the presence, distribution, and abundance of the Florida leafwing butterfly 38 have not been conducted within any of the proposed project areas. Suitable habitat within pine 39 rockland fragments does occur within the proposed transmission-line corridors, and the 40 corridors occur nearby or directly adjacent to critical habitat for this butterfly species. The West 41 transmission-line corridor is proposed to pass approximately 315 m south of SW 360th Street, 42 which borders of the Navy Wells Pineland Preserve. The East corridor is proposed to use an

5-12 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 existing transmission-line corridor that parallels the Richmond Pine Rocklands for approximately 2 700 m. The Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the Richmond Pine Rocklands are proposed 3 critical habitat for the Florida leafwing.

4 Although chemical control of plants including use of growth regulators and herbicides in the 5 vicinity of proposed critical habitat could affect the pineland croton growth and result in habitat 6 degradation or loss, the portion of the East corridor adjacent to proposed critical habitat is 7 currently used for agriculture. If such use continues, chemical control of vegetation for 8 maintenance as a transmission-line corridor in this segment would not be necessary. A buffer 9 over 300 m from the proposed West transmission-line corridor and proposed critical habitat in 10 the Navy Wells Pineland Preserve along with BMPs with respect to herbicide application should 11 provide ample buffer to prevent overspray from affected pineland croton growing in the 12 preserve. Therefore, the proposed construction and operation of transmission lines to support 13 Units 6 and 7 may affect the Florida leafwing, but are unlikely to adversely affect this butterfly 14 species.

15 5.13 Miami Blue Butterfly

16 The Miami blue (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) is restricted to the Florida Keys and would 17 not occur in any of the proposed project areas. Therefore the proposed actions would have no 18 effect on this species of butterfly.

19 5.14 Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly

20 Surveys to determine the presence, distribution, and abundance of Schaus swallowtail butterfly 21 have not been conducted within any of the proposed project areas. Land-cover information 22 indicates that no land cover within any of the project areas has been classified as tropical 23 hardwoods or western Everglades hardwoods. Almost 62 ac of land were classified as Brazilian 24 pepper within the second leg of the preferred route of the West transmission-line corridor that 25 would span between the Clear Sky and Levee substations. Although this indicates suitable 26 Schaus swallowtail habitat may be present, Brazilian pepper is recognized as an exotic and 27 aggressive invasive species that is often established in disturbed areas such as borrow pits, 28 levees, dikes, and old fields. Generally, land cover within this leg is dominated by wetlands of 29 various types. Upland habitats are limited to approximately 131 ac, and the 62 ac of Brazilian 30 pepper represent the only forested land-cover class within this portion of the corridor. 31 Therefore, the likelihood of habitat suitable for Schaus swallowtails remaining within the 32 proposed transmission-line corridors is low, and any remnant tropical hammock habitat is likely 33 of very low quality. All other sections of the proposed transmission-line corridors and the 34 reclaimed potable water pipeline corridors contain negligible amounts of land classified as 35 Brazilian pepper. The proposed actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the 36 Schaus swallowtail and would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

37 5.15 Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterfly

38 Surveys to determine the presence, distribution, and abundance of Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak 39 (Strymon acis bartrami) have not been conducted within any of the proposed project areas. 40 However, potentially suitable habitat within pine rockland fragments does occur within the

5-13 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 proposed transmission-line corridors and the corridors occur nearby or directly adjacent to 2 critical habitat for these butterfly species. All currently proposed West transmission-line 3 corridors pass through the King’s Highway pineland for approximately 0.25 mi. Pineland croton 4 was observed within this parcel (FPL 2009-TN657) and it is proposed as critical habitat for the 5 Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak (78 FR 49832) (TN2845). There are already existing overhead lines 6 suspended by two poles in line passing through this parcel. The West transmission-line corridor 7 is also proposed to pass approximately 315 m south of SW 360th Street, which borders of the 8 Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the East corridor is proposed to use an existing 9 transmission-line corridor that parallels the Richmond Pine Rocklands within 35−50 m for 10 approximately 0.44 mi. Both the Navy Wells Pineland Reserve and the Richmond Pine 11 Rocklands are proposed critical habitat for Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak.

12 Two 500 kV transmission lines and a single 230 kV line would be installed within the West 13 transmission-line corridor. The typical span of the 500 kV poles would be 1,000 ft, and 230 kV 14 poles would span 500 ft. The West corridor in the vicinity of the King’s Highway pineland would 15 be 330 ft wide, include guyed poles, and occupy 10 ac within the pineland (FPL 2010-TN272). 16 Plant species that exceed 14 ft in height would be removed from within the corridor by trimming, 17 mowing, and application of approved growth regulators and herbicides. Management for 18 pineland croton requires periodic disturbance with fire being the primary management tool. It is 19 not known whether the installation of more transmission-line poles and lines would preclude the 20 use of fire as a pine rockland management tool. Mechanical removal of vegetation from the 21 corridor could serve as a surrogate for fire disturbance, but the effectiveness of mechanical 22 removal to maintain pineland croton is not well understood. Use of growth regulators and 23 herbicides where the pineland croton grows could result in habitat degradation or loss for 24 Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak.

25 A single 230 kV line is proposed to be constructed in the East corridor. FPL has stated existing 26 corridors owned by FPL would be used when practicable, and lines would be routed adjacent to 27 existing lines or other linear features (FPL 2014-TN4058). Chemical control of plants in 28 transmission-line corridors adjacent to suitable pine rockland habitat could also result in habitat 29 degradation and loss. Subsequently, if proposed critical habitat were adopted as proposed, the 30 placement of transmission towers within designated critical habitat would result in adverse 31 impact on Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak critical habitat, and control of vegetation could also result 32 in adverse impact on critical habitat for Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. Therefore, the proposed 33 construction and operation of transmission lines to support Units 6 and 7 is likely to adversely 34 affect Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak. However, the spatial extent of these activities is limited and 35 would occur in habitat that although suitable is not currently occupied by this species, so the 36 sum of all proposed activities would not jeopardize the continued existence of Bartram’s scrub- 37 hairstreak.

38 5.16 Crenulate Lead-Plant

39 The construction of Units 6 and 7 would not affect the crenulate lead-plant (Amorpha crenulata) 40 because there is no suitable habitat present in the plant area or in its vicinity. However, a small 41 amount (0.03 ac) of pine flatwoods, the land-cover classification that represents pine rocklands, 42 occurs within the Clear Sky-to-Davis corridor. Botanical survey information confirms pine 43 rockland habitat still exists within the Clear Sky-to-Davis segment of the East corridor as well as

5-14 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 within the first leg of the Clear Sky-to-Levee corridor so it is not known whether the crenulate 2 lead-plant may exist within the transmission-line corridors (FPL 2009-TN657). Although 3 construction and maintenance of the transmission-line corridor may affect isolated individuals, 4 effects would be discountable. Although plant surveys were not conducted within the reclaimed 5 water pipeline corridor or the potable water pipeline corridor, land-cover information suggests 6 that habitat is not present at these locations. Activities related to the development and 7 maintenance of the reclaimed water pipeline and potable water pipeline are not expected to 8 affect this species. Consequently, the construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 and all of the 9 associated facilities including the transmission system, reclaimed and potable water systems, 10 may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the crenulate lead-plant and would not 11 jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

12 5.17 Florida Brickell-Bush

13 The construction of Units 6 and 7 would not affect the Florida brickell-bush (Brickellia mosieri) 14 because there is no suitable habitat present in the plant area or in its vicinity. Botanical survey 15 information confirms pine rockland habitat still exists within the Clear Sky-to-Davis segment of 16 the East corridor as well as within the first leg of the Clear Sky-to-Levee corridor but it is not 17 known whether the Florida brickell-bush may exist within the transmission-line corridors (FPL 18 2009-TN657). Development of the transmission-line corridors and installation of poles and lines 19 would result in habitat loss or degradation in the King’s Highway pineland located within all of 20 the proposed West Preferred corridors. This pine rockland fragment has been proposed as 21 critical habitat for the Florida brickell-bush. Vegetation controls, including mowing and herbicide 22 drift, could also affect individual plants growing elsewhere in this pine rockland and also in other 23 rocklands adjacent to both the proposed East and West corridors if herbicides were used to 24 control vegetation in these vicinities. Increased traffic along transmission-line corridors would 25 also increase the risk of non-native plant introduction into areas adjacent to access roads. The 26 loss and degradation of proposed critical habitat results in the construction and operation of 27 Units 6 and 7, including the construction and operation of transmission lines, as an action that is 28 likely to adversely affect the Florida brickell-bush. The limited spatial extent of impacts from the 29 proposed actions would likely not cause the demise of any single Florida brickell-bush 30 population, and thus would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

31 5.18 Deltoid Spurge

32 Although the deltoid spurge (Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea) was expected to occur 33 within project areas, it was not observed within the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area or the 34 transmission-line corridors (FPL 2009-TN657). Botanical survey information confirms pine 35 rockland habitat still exists within the Clear Sky-to-Davis segment of the East corridor as well as 36 within the first leg of the Clear Sky-to-Levee corridor, but it is not known whether the specific 37 habitat conditions conducive to the presence of the deltoid spurge are present or whether this 38 plant may exist within the transmission-line corridors (FPL 2009-TN657). Although the 39 presence, distribution, and abundance within the reclaimed water and potable water pipeline 40 corridors are unknown, the limited known distribution and unique habitat requirements likely 41 preclude impacts on this species at these locations. Therefore, all proposed project activities 42 related to the construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 may affect, but are not likely to

5-15 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 adversely affect, the deltoid spurge and would not jeopardize the continued existence of the 2 species.

3 5.19 Garber’s Spurge

4 Garber’s spurge (Chamaesyce garberi) has not been recorded on the Turkey Point site nor has 5 it been documented within the proposed transmission-line corridors, but suitable pine rockland 6 habitats may exist within the transmission-line or pipeline corridors. Suitable disturbed upland 7 habitats may be present at these locations as well as within the transmission-line corridors. The 8 specific habitat requirement of open sunny areas where frequent fires have maintained an open 9 canopy likely precludes the occurrence of this species within any of the project areas. 10 Therefore, the construction and operation of Units 6 and 7; construction, operation, and 11 maintenance of the transmission lines; and development of the reclaimed and potable water 12 corridors may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Garber’s spurge plant and would 13 not jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

14 5.20 Okeechobee Gourd

15 The Okeechobee gourd (Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis) is not known to occur 16 anywhere in Miami-Dade County where all of the proposed work is located. Therefore, the 17 proposed work would have no effect on this species.

18 5.21 Small’s Milkpea

19 Suitable habitat for Small’s milkpea (Galactia smallii) does not occur on the Turkey Point site. 20 Although it has not been observed within existing or proposed Units 6 and 7 transmission-line 21 corridors, pine rockland habitat does exist within the proposed East and West transmission-line 22 corridors. Land-cover information indicates suitable habitat for this species does not likely exist 23 within either the reclaimed or potable water corridors. Although Small’s milkpea may exist in 24 remnant pine rocklands and may be affected by the proposed actions, effects would be 25 insignificant or discountable and Small’s milkpea is not likely to be adversely affected. The 26 continued existence of the species would not be jeopardized.

27 5.22 Beach Jacquemontia

28 Beach jacquemontia (Jacquemontia reclinata) has not been observed in the Units 6 and 7 plant 29 area, and suitable habitat does not exist there. It has not been observed within the proposed 30 transmission-line corridors, and none of the proposed transmission-line corridors contains 31 hammocks and coastal scrub on stabilized coastal dunes. Land-cover information indicates 32 suitable habitat does not exist within the reclaimed water pipeline corridor and potable water 33 pipeline corridor. Although beach jacquemontia may be affected by the proposed actions, it is 34 not likely to be adversely affected and the continued existence of the species would not be 35 jeopardized.

36 5.23 Carter’s Small-Flowered Flax

37 The construction of Units 6 and 7 would not affect the Carter’s small-flowered flax (Linum carteri 38 var. carteri) because there is no suitable habitat present in the plant area or in its vicinity.

5-16 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Development of the transmission-line corridors and installation of poles and lines would result in 2 habitat alteration and loss in the King’s Highway pineland located within all of the proposed 3 West Preferred corridors. This pine rockland fragment has been proposed as critical habitat for 4 Carter’s small-flowered flax. This plant could benefit from surface disturbance within suitable 5 habitats, and periodic mowing of vegetation has been identified as a surrogate to fire in 6 maintaining an open understory. However, mowing and use of herbicides to control vegetation 7 within transmission-line corridors would be detrimental to individuals and populations if not 8 conducted properly. The occurrence of this plant near disturbed rockland edges could also 9 increase risk to individual plants during vegetation control efforts that may have colonized the 10 border between rocklands and existing transmission-line corridors. The alteration or loss of 11 proposed critical habitat results in the operation of Units 6 and 7, including the construction and 12 operation of transmission lines, being an action that is likely to adversely affect Carter’s small- 13 flowered flax. The limited spatial extent of impacts from the proposed actions would not cause 14 the demise of any single Carter’s small-flowered flax population, and thus would not jeopardize 15 the continued existence of the species.

16 5.24 Tiny Polygala

17 The tiny polygala (Polygala smallii) has not been observed in the Units 6 and 7 plant area, and 18 there is no suitable habitat there. Although pine rockland habitat exists within the proposed 19 transmission-line corridors, this plant has not been observed during surveys of selected 20 rockland habitats within the corridors. Land-cover information indicates no suitable rockland 21 habitat exists within the reclaimed and potable water pipeline corridors. Activities, such as land 22 clearing or vegetation maintenance within proposed transmission-line corridors may affect, but 23 are not likely to adversely affect, this species and would not jeopardize the continued existence 24 of the species.

5-17

Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 6.0 Cumulative Effects

2 Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are 3 reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this BA. Future Federal actions that 4 are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require 5 separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.

6 The review team evaluated whether construction and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 at the 7 Turkey Point site, combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions, 8 could contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on Federally listed species and critical habitats. 9 For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is within the 6 mi radius of the Turkey Point 10 site.

11 Factors contributing to cumulative impacts include continued power-generation operations at 12 Turkey Point Units 3−5 and continued development in South Florida; each of these factors is 13 discussed below. The review team considered these potential impact sources when reviewing 14 ecology-related portions of FPL’s ER and when issuing Requests for Additional Information and 15 reviewing responses.

16 6.1 Turkey Point Site Activities

17 The 9,400 ac Turkey Point site currently contains five existing power-generating plants. Units 1 18 and 2 are natural-gas/oil steam electrical generating units each with a generating capacity of 19 400 MW(e). Unit 1 began commercial operation in 1967 and Unit 2 in 1968. In January 2013, 20 Unit 2 was converted to operate in synchronous condenser mode to provide voltage stability for 21 the transmission system in southeastern Florida. In this mode, it no longer generates power 22 using a steam cycle or provides a significant thermal discharge to the IWF. FPL also expects to 23 convert Unit 1 to a similar purpose starting in October 2016 (FPL 2013-TN2630). Two nuclear 24 pressurized water reactors (Units 3 and 4) each producing 700 MW(e) of power and their 25 associated facilities are also located on the site and generating power. Unit 3 has been in 26 service since 1972, and Unit 4 has been in service since 1973. Both units received operating 27 license renewals, allowing operation of Unit 3 until 2032 and Unit 4 until 2033 (NRC 2012- 28 TN1298; NRC 2012-TN1299). These units were also granted an extended power uprate by the 29 NRC that increased the capacity of each unit from 700 MW(e) to 823 MW(e) in 2012 (77 FR 30 20059) (TN1001). Unit 5 is a natural-gas combined-cycle unit that uses closed-cycle cooling; it 31 began operating in 2007 and is rated to produce 1,150 MW(e). These existing units occupy 32 approximately 195 ac. When generating power, Units 1−4 rely on a cooling system of canals 33 that occupy approximately 5,900 ac on the Turkey Point site. The canals are used as a closed- 34 loop cooling system, and they are permitted as an IWF. Mechanical draft cooling towers are 35 used to dissipate heat from Unit 5. Water from the Upper Floridan aquifer is withdrawn to 36 provide makeup water to Unit 5. Blowdown from the Unit 5 cooling towers is sent to the cooling 37 canals of the IWF (FPL 2014-TN4058).

38 In addition to providing cooling water for Units 1−4, the IWF provides habitat and forage for 39 American crocodiles and many wading birds; the majority of the IWF is on Federally designated 40 critical habitat for American crocodiles. The operation of Units 1 (at least until its conversion to

6-1 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 synchronous condenser mode), 3, and 4 will continue to influence American crocodile 2 populations living in the IWF as they have in the past. Unit 5, because of its closed-cycle 3 cooling system, will have minor impacts on the IWF because of a lack of significant thermal 4 discharge. FPL’s ongoing crocodile management plan protects and enhances the onsite 5 populations, and will continue regardless of the outcome of the proposed action. As described 6 above, FPL’s current incidental take limit is one crocodile per year. According to FPL, this limit 7 has not been exceeded at any time since 2006. Historically, verified mortalities of crocodiles on 8 the Turkey Point site have been related to vehicular traffic. Onsite vehicular use would increase 9 substantially during the construction of Units 6 and 7 and may result in increases in vehicle- 10 related mortalities. Conversion of Units 1 and 2 to synchronous condenser mode would reduce 11 onsite vehicular traffic attributable to these two existing units. However, total site vehicular 12 traffic would likely increase once Units 6 and 7 become operational. To minimize encounters 13 with crocodiles during construction and operation of Units 6 and 7, FPL would follow its existing 14 crocodile protection and education plan (FPL 2012-TN1618). This would include conducting 15 surveys prior to pre-clearing and construction, and the use of lectures, videos, and informational 16 signs to ensure all construction personnel are familiar with the crocodile’s protected status, and 17 understand the procedures for dealing with sightings or direct encounters (FPL 2012-TN1618). 18 In addition, cumulative adverse effects on American crocodiles related to the operation of the 19 existing or proposed units may be further reduced if the proposed Sea Dade Canal Crocodile 20 Sanctuary project is implemented (FPL 2012-TN1618). As previously noted, this sanctuary 21 would be located south and west of the existing IWF in an area adjacent to the Sea Dade Canal 22 (FPL 2012-TN1618). When completed, this action would create approximately 6.4 ac of low- 23 salinity ponds for juvenile crocodiles and substrate and habitat conditions suitable for nesting 24 activities.

25 Water within the cooling canals does not discharge into other surface waterbodies and is 26 hypersaline. FPL predicted that the increase in capacity derived from the NRC-approved uprate 27 of Units 3 and 4 (77 FR 20059) (TN1001) would increase water temperatures within the cooling 28 canals by 2°F and increase salinity by 2−3 ppt (FPL 2014-TN4058). Aquatic prey species for 29 wading birds, raptors, and American crocodiles found within the cooling canals are typical of 30 subtropical or tropical coastal settings and would not likely be affected by the predicted 31 increases in water temperature or salinity. These predicted changes in the IWF resulting from 32 the power uprate for Units 3 and 4 did not take into account the conversion of Units 1 and 2 to 33 synchronous condenser mode, which will result in a net loss of thermal loading of the IWF. 34 Thus, it is possible that changes in IWF temperature and salinity related to the increase in the 35 capacity of Units 3 and 4 may be offset by the conversion of Units 1 and 2 to synchronous 36 condenser mode, but this cannot be confirmed or refuted without additional data collection from 37 the IWF, the use of predictive hydrodynamic and climatological models, or a combination of both 38 approaches. Units 6 and 7 would add no thermal discharges to the IWF because excess heat 39 would be dissipated to the atmosphere by mechanical draft cooling towers and blowdown would 40 be discharged to a deep aquifer hydraulically isolated from the IWF. Unit 5 also uses freshwater 41 mechanical draft cooling towers to dissipate heat. Because the water source for Unit 5 is 42 groundwater (FPL 2014-TN4058) the deposition of salt from its cooling-tower drift is minimal, 43 and the combined salt deposition from Units 5, 6, and 7 would not be expected to exceed levels 44 that would be harmful to area wetlands and biota even when saltwater as makeup water for the 45 Units 6 and 7 cooling towers is used for a limited time. Reclaimed water also could replace

6-2 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 groundwater as the primary coolant for Unit 5 in the future. As with Units 6 and 7, the use of 2 reclaimed water for cooling Unit 5 would also result in the deposition of CECs in the 3 environment from cooling-tower drift. However, CEC deposition levels from Units 6 and 7 are 4 expected to be below known toxicological benchmarks (see Table 5-1 above). Even with the 5 addition of Unit 5, all three units would not be expected to reach levels that could adversely 6 affect Federally listed species or critical habitat.

7 The review team assumes fuel barge deliveries would continue to the site until Unit 1 is 8 converted to synchronous condenser mode in October 2016, as described above. Unit 2 no 9 longer generates power so fuel shipments to support that unit are not required. The applicant 10 would likely maintain the barge-unloading facility even after fuel shipments are ended to allow 11 for infrequent future shipments of equipment. Maintenance and use of the barge-unloading 12 facility may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, the Florida manatee, particularly given the 13 implementation of the barge delivery plan included in the SCA document developed by FPL 14 (FPL 2009-TN169; FPL 2010-TN272). The existing units may also require additional protection 15 from sea-level rise in the future that could further affect existing hydrology and potentially 16 reduce the potential for species introduction into the IWF via storm surge. This potential impact 17 is discussed below.

18 6.2 Continued Population Growth and Development

19 Continued growth of the human population in South Florida would result in more urban land 20 development, decreased natural habitat, more hydrological alterations, and reduced connectivity 21 and ecological function of remaining habitats. An increase in the amount of impervious surfaces 22 would increase runoff during storm events. Building more roads and levees would funnel runoff 23 rather than allowing natural sheet flow, thereby affecting area wetlands and aquatic habitats and 24 the biota that thrive in them. Land-management planners in the region have begun to account 25 for increased human habitation within conceptual ecological models (Ogden et al. 2005-TN196) 26 in response to planning efforts that failed to account for an unpredictably large increase in the 27 human population (Ogden et al. 2005-TN197). The Comprehensive Development Master Plan 28 for Miami-Dade County and the Coastal Zone Management Program could help minimize the 29 ecological impacts (Miami-Dade County 2012-TN1150; NOAA 2007-TN1244). Increased 30 population growth and coastal development have been cited as serious concerns by many 31 Federal and State resource agencies, nongovernmental groups, and researchers studying 32 South Florida ecosystems. For instance, the National Research Council (2008-TN666), in its 33 2008 review of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), noted that an 34 expanding population in South Florida would increase competition with contemplated ecosystem 35 restoration for finite resources such as land and water and that planned restoration efforts could 36 be in conflict with agriculture when farmed areas interrupt intended water flow for rehydration 37 and restoration. Environmental effects related to historical and current population growth have 38 also been incorporated into ecosystem conceptual models for South Florida (Ogden et al. 2005- 39 TN196; Ogden et al. 2005-TN197) and identified as a major threat to Biscayne National Park. A 40 similar concern was stated in the Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and EIS for the 41 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland Phase 1 Project (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038), which 42 indicated that without the Phase 1 project, further development and creation of impervious 43 surfaces would lead to increased runoff and larger point-source freshwater discharges into 44 nearshore areas. The USACE/SFWMD also indicated that if the plan was not implemented,

6-3 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 much of the study area for the project would likely undergo urban and/or industrial development, 2 resulting in increased stormwater runoff and pollution, and additional use of chemicals to reduce 3 mosquito populations and support agricultural development (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). 4 Increased population and growth in nearshore areas of South Florida may also necessitate the 5 need for shoreline armoring or creation of barrier systems in response to sea-level rise and 6 climate change, as discussed below. Thus, it appears clear that unrestricted coastal 7 development and population growth could result in adverse effects on many species living in 8 South Florida under the jurisdiction of the FWS, including the American crocodile, Florida 9 manatee, Florida panther, wood stork, Everglade snail kite, Florida bonneted bat, Florida 10 leafwing, Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak, the Florida brickell-bush, and Carter’s small-flowered flax.

11 6.3 Everglades/Biscayne National Parks, Florida Keys National Marine 12 Sanctuary

13 The continued operation of the Everglades and Biscayne National Parks and Florida Keys 14 National Marine Sanctuary would serve to limit development east, south, and west of Turkey 15 Point. Habitat fragmentation and loss and subsequent reduction of flora and fauna populations 16 endemic to South Florida that could occur as a result of continued development in the region 17 would be extremely limited within park boundaries. The proximity of these parks to Turkey Point 18 could serve to buffer the effects of construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 on the 19 surrounding landscape. The CERP, approved under the Water Resources Development Act of 20 2000 (33 USC 2201 et seq.) (TN1037), is intended to provide a framework for restoration, 21 protection, and preservation of water resources in central and southern Florida. The program 22 encompasses 16 counties and more than 180,000 mi2, and is expected to take more than 30 23 years to complete at a cost of nearly $12 billion in 2007 dollars (USACE/SFWMD 2012- 24 TN1035). The primary goals of the CERP are to capture freshwater that now flows into 25 nearshore coastal areas as point sources and redirect it to promote more natural hydrologic 26 conditions and enhance environmental connectivity (USACE/SFWMD 2012-TN1035). One of 27 the key CERP projects that will affect ecological resources in the vicinity of the Turkey Point site 28 is the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 Project (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). The 29 USACE Jacksonville District is the lead agency for this project; the SFWMD serves as the non- 30 Federal cost-sharing partner. The overall goal of the project is to rehydrate coastal wetlands 31 and reduce the point-source discharge of freshwater into Biscayne Bay by redirecting the water 32 to spreaders in coastal wetlands that are currently bypassed by the canal systems. This is 33 intended to improve nearshore substrate and fish habitat that are affected by high salinity during 34 the dry season, and to reduce excessive freshwater outflow during the rainy season. As 35 designed, the project will divert an average of 59 percent of the freshwater discharged into 36 Biscayne Bay from coastal structures into freshwater and saltwater wetlands (USACE/SFWMD 37 2011-TN1038). As noted by the National Research Council (2008-TN666), CERP is an 38 extremely complex, long-term restoration program with 68 separate subprojects that require 39 sophisticated scientific knowledge of ecosystem function and dynamics, and the development of 40 new approaches and technologies to support water management. In its second biennial review 41 of CERP progress, the Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration 42 Progress (National Research Council 2008-TN666) concluded CERP was “…bogged down in 43 budgeting, planning, and procedural matters and is making only scant progress toward 44 achieving restoration goals.” The Committee went on to state that the ecosystems CERP is

6-4 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 intended to save remain in peril while rising construction costs and ongoing population growth 2 and development make restoration challenges more difficult (National Research Council 2008- 3 TN666). Unfortunately, in its third biennial review, the Council concluded “Natural system 4 restoration progress from the CERP remains slow. This committee reaffirmed its predecessor’s 5 conclusions (National Research Council 2008-TN666) that continued declines in some aspects 6 of the ecosystem coupled with environmental and societal changes make accelerated progress 7 in Everglades restoration even more important" (National Research Council 2010-TN1036). In 8 the fourth biennial review, the Council noted progress was occurring due to eight CERP projects 9 were now under construction. Despite this success, the Council remained concerned about the 10 slow pace of projects intended to restore the hydrology of the historical Everglades ecosystem, 11 and the effects of recent Federal budget decisions on future appropriations (National Research 12 Council 2012-TN2685). Thus, it is difficult to predict whether CERP-related restoration actions, 13 or those funded by other sources, will meet their intended goals and result in a detectable 14 beneficial change in affected aquatic resources in South Florida. Typically, the Corps’ 15 Regulatory Program coordinates with CERP during the publication of the public notice. The 16 Corps’ Regulatory Program will not deny a project based solely on the possibility of a CERP 17 project but will take into consideration the comments generated at the time of the publication of 18 the public notice.

19 6.4 Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition Projects

20 The Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition projects represent an effort to manage 21 lands immediately south and west of the Turkey Point site and represent a collaborative effort 22 by the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program of Miami-Dade County (2012-TN1761) and 23 the Save Our Rivers Program of the SFWMD (2012-TN1760). The restoration area 24 encompasses about 34,000 ac of freshwater and coastal wetlands and serves as a key area for 25 freshwater flow to Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, and Barnes Sound (SFWMD 2005- 26 TN217). Programmatic goals include improving the overall condition of about 34,000 ac of 27 freshwater and coastal wetlands by removing exotic plants, improving access control to 28 sensitive areas, implementing a prescribed fire program, and restoring wetland function by 29 removing physical barriers to overland flow (SFWMD 2005-TN217). All of these activities could 30 improve the ecological quality of wetlands and other habitats surrounding the Turkey Point site 31 and offset some of the effects, including wetland habitat loss attributable to proposed Units 6 32 and 7. Although many of the restoration actions do not specifically involve aquatic resources, 33 the overall program will benefit aquatic species by restoring historic flow patterns into Biscayne 34 Bay and Card Sound, and limiting future impacts through programmatic planning. If successful, 35 these projects could result in ecosystem connection and function that more closely resemble 36 what was present before industrialization and urbanization occurred in South Florida. In theory, 37 these actions should provide a positive benefit to many species, including the American 38 crocodile, Florida manatee, wood stork, and the Everglade snail kite. However, changes in 39 aquatic environments may not be evident for many years after project implementation.

40 6.5 Global Climate Change

41 Climate change in South Florida is also projected to alter seasonal precipitation and 42 temperature regimes, increase storm frequency and intensity that may damage nearshore 43 infrastructure or natural features, and increase sea level within the geographic area of interest.

6-5 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Temperatures in South Florida are expected to increase while spring and summer rainfall is 2 projected to decrease (GCRP 2009-TN18). The intensity of Atlantic hurricanes is also projected 3 to increase. Sea levels are also projected to rise (Cela et al. 2010-TN1034; USACE 2009- 4 TN1359). Increased temperatures coupled with decreased rainfall during spring and summer 5 could stress existing plant communities and lead to substantial alterations of plant cover. Fire 6 frequency could also increase with increased temperatures and decreased precipitation. This 7 could result in a greater prevalence of early successional habitats in inland settings. Coastal 8 mangrove wetlands within and adjacent to the Turkey Point site are similar to mangrove 9 wetlands throughout much of South Florida—they are relatively low in elevation. The quality, 10 quantity, and spatial distribution of low-elevation coastal wetlands would change as a result of 11 saltwater intrusion, erosion, and accretion caused by predicted sea-level rise (Titus et al. 2009- 12 TN1360). Some coastal wetlands may be converted to open water, while wetland types may be 13 displaced inland. Climate change could affect precipitation patterns and alter hydrological flow, 14 connectivity, and timing. Elevated sea levels may threaten existing aquatic and wetland 15 environments and coastal infrastructure and affect the success of ongoing or planned 16 restoration activities. The potential for climate change to influence ongoing or future restoration 17 success is of particular relevance to aquatic resources present at or near Turkey Point site, 18 because long-term changes in rainfall patterns or saltwater intrusion into estuarine areas could 19 negate efforts to re-establish historical flow and salinity conditions. For example, in an analysis 20 of the effects of climate-induced sea-level rise on the success of the Biscayne Bay Coastal 21 Wetlands Phase 1 Project, the USACE and SFWMD estimated that within a 20-year time frame 22 after project construction was completed in 2012, approximately 8 percent of the project 23 ecosystem benefits were likely to be at risk from sea-level rise. At the end of 50 years, 24 expected benefits would be diminished by 41 percent, as determined by comparing flood- 25 prediction maps for a 2 ft sea-level rise to the benefitted area projections in the plan 26 (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). Thus, salinity intrusion related to sea-level rise both 27 confounds ecological restoration efforts designed to reduce nearshore salinities and affirms the 28 need for such actions to ensure further degradation does not occur. Both actions could 29 adversely affect the distribution and abundance of Florida manatees, which are present in 30 freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore habitats.

31 A second important stressor on the aquatic resources at or near the Turkey Point site from 32 climate change is the likelihood for additional shoreline armoring or infrastructure designed to 33 protect cities, urban areas, roads, bridges, and agricultural land from rising sea levels. For 34 instance, in Miami-Dade County, 4,358 km2 of land are at elevations of 5 m or less, and 3,500 35 km2 are at elevations of 2 m or less above the spring high-water level (Cela et al. 2010- 36 TN1034). Because coastal lands have a high property value and support tourist, recreational, 37 and commercial enterprises, property owners and local governments can be expected to 38 demand protection of many of these coastal areas from erosion, inundation, infrastructure 39 damage, and flooding. Areas in Miami-Dade County where shore protection is “reasonably 40 likely” or “almost certain” include the existing IWF at the Turkey Point site and nearshore areas 41 extending north toward Miami (Cela et al. 2010-TN1034). The armoring and protection actions 42 in these areas, including the IWF, could contribute to habitat fragmentation or interfere with 43 restoration activities designed to restore historical hydrological flow and ecological connections. 44 Coupled with increased population and urbanization, protection activities could become a 45 permanent part of the coastal landscape, and dramatically influence the future of aquatic

6-6 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 resources in South Florida. As discussed above, the cumulative effects of these actions cannot 2 be predicted until a comprehensive plan for climate change adaptation is developed by the 3 State of Florida.

4 6.6 Cumulative Impacts Summary

5 Sixteen species that are Federally endangered or threatened are known to occur in Miami-Dade 6 County. The review team has determined that the construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 7 may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, 13 of the listed species. The review team further 8 determined the construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 are likely to adversely affect the 9 wood stork, Everglade snail kite, Florida panther, American crocodile, Florida leafwing, 10 Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak, Florida brickell-bush, and Carter’s small-flowered flax at the Turkey 11 Point site or along transmission-line corridors operated in support of Units 6 and 7. Adverse 12 effects on the wood stork and Everglade snail kite, including habitat loss and degradation as 13 well as increased collision mortality risk, are primarily associated with construction and 14 operation of transmission lines servicing Units 6 and 7. Transmission-line construction and 15 operation would also degrade habitat within the Florida panther management zones, and 16 increased traffic during construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 would raise the risk of 17 collision mortality to the remaining panther population. American crocodile living in the IWF 18 would be adversely affected by construction activities, may temporarily or permanently abandon 19 nesting areas in the northern portion of the IWF, and would be susceptible to a greater risk of 20 vehicular collisions during construction activities. In addition, designated critical habitat would 21 be adversely modified, including the permanent loss of approximately 270 ac of habitat 22 designated as critical to build Units 6 and 7, and use of approximately 211 ac of critical habitat 23 along IWF berm walls to dispose of muck excavated from the power block area. Operation of 24 Units 6 and 7 is not expected to affect crocodiles living in the IWF, because the design of the 25 proposed cooling system would eliminate the need for conventional intake or outfall structures, 26 and cooling-tower deposition effects would be minimal. In addition, pine rockland habitat that 27 functions as biodiversity islands for many listed species endemic to South Florida would be 28 affected by construction, operation, and maintenance of transmission lines. The Florida 29 leafwing, Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak, Florida brickell-bush, and Carter’s small-flowered flax 30 depend on the remaining pine rockland fragments in Miami-Dade County. Critical habitat has 31 also been proposed for all four species and includes pine rockland fragments that lie within or 32 adjacent to proposed transmission-line corridors. Construction and maintenance of the 33 corridors would result in loss and degradation of proposed critical habitat.

34 Although the impacts of construction and operation of the proposed Units 6 and 7 may 35 adversely affect 4 of the 15 listed species and all other species proposed for listing that occur at 36 or near the site or near the proposed transmission-line corridors, the review team considers the 37 contributions of construction and operation of the proposed new units to the overall cumulative 38 effects in this part of South Florida to be minor in comparison to the other existing or reasonably 39 foreseeable actions listed below: 40 • Human population growth and subsequent conversion of lands from natural habitats to 41 agriculture and urbanization within the landscape of South Florida will continue to shrink the 42 amount of habitat available to native flora and fauna. Animals requiring large home ranges 43 such as the Florida panther would be affected first. Increases in landscape fragmentation

6-7 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 could further limit the amount of available habitat as well as the connectivity among Florida 2 panther populations and individuals. Building of new roads and increases in traffic levels 3 could lead to increase collision mortality. Ongoing restoration activities within the region 4 could also serve to preserve and restore panther habitat connectivity albeit at a somewhat 5 local scale. 6 • Increased development and wetland habitat loss and degradation could continue to 7 decrease habitat suitability for foraging wood storks and Everglade snail kites and 8 consequently the populations of these two bird species. Restoration projects, including 9 CERP and the Model Lands effort could counteract development elsewhere and enhance 10 both snail kite and wood stork habitat. 11 • Like the Florida panther, eastern indigo snakes may be particularly prone to vehicle collision 12 mortality. Increased road density and traffic levels that accompany human population 13 growth and landscape development could lead to higher indigo snake mortality. When 14 underground, they are also at risk during ground-clearing activities and operation of off-road 15 vehicles. 16 • Many of the listed plants and insects including the Florida brickell-bush, Carter’s small- 17 flowered flax, Florida leafwing, and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak known to occur in Miami- 18 Dade County occur in pine rockland and associated marl prairie habitats. Pine rocklands in 19 South Florida represent relatively high-elevation areas within a landscape dominated by 20 wetlands and have been the first areas to be developed, logged, or farmed. Many of the 21 remaining pine rockland fragments have been protected through public ownership, but some 22 remain in private ownership. The effects of extreme habitat fragmentation, introduction and 23 spread of exotic plants, fire suppression, and changes in groundwater levels continue to 24 threaten the existence of listed plants within remaining pine rockland and marl prairie 25 fragments. Sea-level rise has converted pine rocklands into tidal swamp within the Florida 26 Keys and could continue to do so in the future. 27 • Likely future shoreline armoring or major changes to nearshore structures, including canal 28 systems, could negatively affect Florida manatee. Manatee would also continue to be 29 susceptible to boat strikes, which could be exacerbated by population growth in the coastal 30 zone. 31 • Shoreline armoring or modification of the berms of the IWF in response to sea-level rise 32 could directly affect American crocodile habitat by reducing connectivity and suitable nesting 33 sites. Loss of connectivity could influence existing prey by reducing prey introduction during 34 storm surge and also degrade water quality. Regional development would also increase the 35 likelihood of vehicle collisions with crocodiles. Climate-induced sea-level rise could 36 confound or negate long-term projects in South Florida to restore historical sheet flow and 37 salinity patterns in nearshore areas.

6-8 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 7.0 Conclusions

2 The review team’s evaluation of the potential impacts of the building and operation of proposed 3 Units 6 and 7 on each Federally protected species and those proposed to be Federally 4 protected potentially occurring in areas affected by the proposed project and cumulative impacts 5 from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are presented in Sections 6 5.0 and 6.0 of this BA. Summary conclusions related to the expected impacts of construction 7 and operation of the proposed Units 6 and 7 are presented in Table 7−1. Of particular note, the 8 review team further concludes that construction and operation would likely adversely affect four 9 currently listed species—the American crocodile, the wood stork, the Everglade snail kite, and 10 the Florida panther—and three species proposed for listing— Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak, the 11 Florida brickell-bush, and Carter’ small-flowered flax. American crocodiles residing in the IWF 12 would likely be disturbed by construction activities, and they may temporarily or permanently 13 abandon basking and nesting habitat in the northern portion of the IWF adjacent to the Turkey 14 Point Plant Area. Construction-related traffic may also increase the risk of vehicular collisions. 15 Construction of the proposed units would also result in a permanent loss of approximately 16 218 ac of designated crocodile critical habitat at the plant area, and adverse effects on 17 approximately 211 ac of critical habitat along IWF berm walls to support muck disposal. 18 Collectively, these actions would affect less than 1 percent of the designated critical habitat in 19 South Florida. Adverse effects on the wood stork and snail kite would be primarily associated 20 with the loss of foraging habitat related to construction and increased collision risk from 21 transmission-line operation. Habitat within various panther management zones would be 22 degraded and increased traffic from construction and operation personnel would increase 23 vehicle collision risk. Construction activities and transmission-line maintenance may also result 24 in the loss of pine rockland habitat that functions as biodiversity islands for many listed species 25 endemic to South Florida including Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak, Florida brickell-bush, and 26 Carter’s small-flowered flax.

27 Table 7-1. Summary of Impacts on Listed Species from the Construction and Operation 28 of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7

Federal Scientific Name Common Name Status Determination Mammals Eumops floridanus Florida bonneted bat E May affect, but not likely to adversely affect Puma concolor coryi Florida panther E Likely to adversely affect Trichechus manatus latirostris Florida manatee E May affect, but not likely to adversely affect Birds Ammodramus maritimus Cape Sable seaside E No effect mirabilis sparrow

7-1 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Table 7-1. (contd)

Federal Scientific Name Common Name Status Determination Calidris canutus rufa Rufa red knot T May affect, but not likely to adversely affect Charadrius melodus Piping plover T May affect, but not likely to adversely affect Mycteria americana Wood stork E Likely to adversely affect Rostrhamus sociabilis Everglade snail kite E Likely to adversely affect plumbeus Sterna dougallii Roseate tern T No effect Insects Anaea troglodyte floridalis Florida leafwing PE May affect, but not likely to butterfly adversely affect Cyclargus thomasi Miami blue butterfly E No effect bethunebakeri Heraclides aristodemus Schaus swallowtail E May affect, but not likely to ponceanus) butterfly adversely affect Strymon acis bartrami Bartram’s scrub- PE Likely to adversely affect hairstreak butterfly Reptiles Crocodylus acutus American crocodile T Likely to adversely affect Drymarchon couperi Eastern indigo snake T May affect, but not likely to adversely affect Plants Amorpha herbacea var. Crenulate lead-plant E May affect, but not likely to crenulata adversely affect Argythamnia blodgettii Blodgett’s silverbush C NA Brickellia eupatorioides var. Florida brickell-bush PE Likely to adversely affect floridana Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. Deltoid spurge E May affect, but not likely to deltoidea adversely affect Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. Pineland sandmat C NA pinetorum Chamaesyce garberi Garber's spurge T May affect, but not likely to adversely affect Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. Okeechobee gourd E No effect okeechobeensis Dalea carthagenensis Florida prairie-clover C NA Digitaria pauciflora Florida pineland C NA crabgrass Galactia smallii Small's milkpea E May affect, but not likely to adversely affect Jacquemontia reclinata Beach jacquemontia E May affect, but not likely to adversely affect Linum arenicola Sand flax C NA Linum carteri var. carteri Carter’s small- PE Likely to adversely affect flowered flax Polygala smallii Tiny polygala E May affect, but not likely to adversely affect

7-2 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 8.0 References

2 10 CFR Part 50. 2012. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic 3 Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." Washington, D.C. TN249.

4 10 CFR Part 51. 2011. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 5 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." 6 Washington, D.C. TN250.

7 10 CFR Part 52. 2012. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses, 8 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." Washington, D.C. TN251.

9 40 CFR Part 122. 2013. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 10 122, "EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 11 System." Washington, D.C. TN2769.

12 40 CFR Part 230. 2008. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 13 230, "Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill 14 Material." Washington, D.C. TN427.

15 40 FR 44149. September 25, 1975. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Listing of 16 Endangered and Threatened Fauna.” Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 17 Washington, D.C. TN2587.

18 41 FR 41914. September 24, 1976. “Determination of Critical Habitat for American Crocodile, 19 California Condor, Indiana Bat, and Florida Manatee.” Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 20 Service, Washington, D.C. TN275.

21 52 FR 42064. November 2, 1987. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 22 Determination of Endangered and Threatened Status for Two Populations of the Roseate Tern." 23 Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN3277.

24 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 25 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities.” Federal Register, 26 Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. TN243.

27 72 FR 13027. March 20, 2007. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 28 Reclassification of the American Crocodile Distinct Population Segment in Florida From 29 Endangered to Threatened.” Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, 30 D.C. TN274.

31 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants." 32 Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN260.

33 77 FR 20059. April 3, 2012. “License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power 34 Level, Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4.” Federal Register, Nuclear 35 Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN1001.

8-1 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 77 FR 60750. October 4, 2012. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 2 Endangered Species Status for the Florida Bonneted Bat." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife 3 Service, Washington, D.C. TN2276.

4 78 FR 49832. August 15, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 5 Designation of Critical Habitat for Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies." 6 Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN2845.

7 78 FR 49878. August 15, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered 8 Status for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies." Federal Register, 9 Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN2844.

10 78 FR 60024. September 30, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 11 Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)." Federal Register, 12 Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN3199.

13 78 FR 61004. October 2, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered 14 Species Status for the Florida Bonneted Bat." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, 15 Washington, D.C. TN2659.

16 79 FR 37077. June 30, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 17 Reclassification of the U.S. Breeding Population of the Wood Stork from Endangered to 18 Threatened." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN4039.

19 79 FR 41211. July 15, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 20 Critical Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. carteri 21 (Carter’s Small-flowered Flax)." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 22 TN3725.

23 79 FR 47222. August 12, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered 24 Status for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram’s Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies." Federal Register, 25 Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. TN3726.

26 79 FR 52567. September 4, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 27 Endangered Species Status for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. 28 carteri (Carter's Small-flowered Flax). Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, 29 D.C. TN4068.

30 16 USC 1531 et seq. Endangered Species Act of 1973. TN1010.

31 33 USC 403 et seq. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended. TN660.

32 33 USC 1251 et seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 [also referred to as Clean 33 Water Act]. TN662.

34 33 USC 1344 et seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act [also referred to as Clean Water Act]. 35 "Permits for Dredged or Fill Material." TN1019.

8-2 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 33 USC 2201 et seq. Water Resources Development Act of 2000. TN1037.

2 Beissinger, S.R. 1983. "Hunting Behavior, Prey Selection, and Energetics of Snail Kites in 3 Guyana: Consumer Choice by a Specialist." The Auk 100:84-92, Berkley, California. TN2383.

4 Brausch, J.M. and G.M. Rand. 2011. “A Review of Personal Care Products in the Aquatic 5 Environment: Environmental Concentrations and Toxicity.” Chemosphere 82:1518–1532, New 6 York, New York. TN1002.

7 Cela, M., J. Hulsey, and J.G. Titus. 2010. “South Florida.” Chapter 8 in The Likelihood of 8 Shore Protection along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Volume 2: New England and 9 the Southeast. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 10 ML12269A197. TN1034.

11 CERP (Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan). 2012. “About CERP: Brief Overview.” 12 West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A241. TN1035.

13 Charruau, P. 2012. "Microclimate of American Crocodile Nests in Banco Chinchorro Biosphere 14 Reserve, Mexico: Effect on Incubation Length, Embryos Survival and Hatchlings Sex." Journal 15 of Thermal Biology 37:6-14, New York, New York. TN2489.

16 Daniels, J.C. 2005. "Blues: Miami Blue (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri)." In Red List of 17 Pollinator Insects of North America. Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon. Available at 18 http://www.xerces.org/miami-blue/. TN141.

19 Elliot-Smith, E., S.M. Haig, and B.M. Powers. 2009. Data from the 2006 International Piping 20 Plover Census. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 426, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. 21 ML14342A016. TN3296.

22 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "ECOTOX Database." Washington, D.C. 23 Accession No. ML14301A008. TN1525.

24 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. Proposed Conditions of 25 Certifications for Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 & 7. PA 03- 26 45A3, Revised May 24, 2013, Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. 27 Accession No. ??. TN2583.

28 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. Siting Coordination. 29 Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/default.htm. TN2629.

30 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2007. Florida Manatee 31 Management Plan Trichechus manatus latirostris. Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. 32 ML14328A280. TN853.

33 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2010. "Statement on Estimating 34 Panther Population Size." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 35 http://myfwc.com/news/resources/fact-sheets/panther-population/. TN3438.

8-3 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. Florida’s Endangered and 2 Threatened Species. Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 3 http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/. TN158.

4 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. Letter from J. Walsh to 5 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, dated June 13, 2011, regarding "Site 6 Certification Application, Florida Power and Light, Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Miami-Dade 7 County, Florida; PA03-45A3, Agency Report, Transmission Line Portion." Tallahassee, Florida. 8 Accession No. ML14328A281. TN554.

9 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2012. American Crocodiles, 10 Crocodylus acutus. Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 11 http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/reptiles-and-amphibians/reptiles/american-crocodiles. 12 TN164.

13 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2012. Letter from S. Sanders to 14 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, dated March 23, 2012, regarding "Site 15 Certification Application, Florida Power and Light, Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Miami-Dade 16 County, Florida; PA03-45A3, Agency Report, Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Site Portion." 17 Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A282. TN520.

18 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2013. Email from J. Goff to C. 19 Duberstein, dated March 14, 2013, regarding "Review of Snail Kite Locations and the Proposed 20 Power Line through Everglades National Park and Water Conservation Area 3B." West Palm 21 Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A283. TN2339.

22 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2013. "Manatee Synoptic 23 Surveys." Available at http://myfwc.com/research/manatee/projects/population- 24 monitoring/synoptic-surveys/. Gainesville, Florida. TN2469.

25 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2000. Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of 26 Florida. Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML12193A519. TN139.

27 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2012. "Florida’s Conservation Lands [interactive map]." 28 Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14287A531. TN1445.

29 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2014. "FNAI Tracking List: Miami-Dade County." 30 Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://fnai.org/trackinglist.cfm. TN3668.

31 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2000. Letter from P.C. Hindes to Florida Fish and 32 Wildlife Conservation Commission, dated December 12, 2000, regarding "Activity Report for 33 Permit #WX95031." Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. TN202.

34 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2003. Letter from J. Wasilewski to State of Florida 35 Fish & Wildlife, dated February 27, 2003, regarding "Turkey Point Plant Annual American 36 Crocodile Report 2001." Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. TN168.

8-4 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2003. Letter from J. Wasilewski to State of Florida 2 Fish & Wildlife, dated February 27, 2003, regarding "Turkey Point Plant Annual American 3 Crocodile Monitoring Report 2002." Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. 4 TN203.

5 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2003. Letter from J. Wasilewski to State of Florida 6 Fish & Wildlife, dated September 26, 2003, regarding "Turkey Point Plant Annual American 7 Crocodile Monitoring Report 2003." Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. 8 TN204.

9 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2004. Letter from J. Wasilewski to State of Florida 10 Fish & Wildlife, dated September 15, 2004, regarding "Turkey Point Plant Annual American 11 Crocodile Monitoring Report 2004." Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. 12 TN205.

13 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2005. Letter from S.M. Foster to FWS, dated 14 December 15, 2005, regarding "Turkey Point Plant Annual American Crocodile Monitoring 15 Report (2005)." Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. TN206.

16 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2006. FPL Turkey Point Plant Annual American 17 Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. Permit WS03357, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 18 ML11168A043. TN207.

19 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2007. FPL Turkey Point Plant Annual American 20 Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. Permit WS06468 and WX06467, Juno Beach, Florida. 21 Accession No. ML11180A084. TN208.

22 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2008. FPL Turkey Point Plant Annual American 23 Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. Permit TE092945-1, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 24 No. ML11180A084. TN209.

25 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Barge Delivery Plan 26 Barge Facility. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML12240A281. TN169.

27 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Final Fish Surveys of the Turkey Point 28 Property Associated with Units 6 & 7, June 23-24, 2009. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. 29 ML11168A043. TN201.

30 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. FPL Turkey Point Plant Annual American 31 Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. Federal Permit TE092945-1, State Permits WS06468a 32 and WX06467a, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11180A084. TN210.

33 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Final Summary Report Botanical Survey for 34 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants-Turkey Point Proposed Transmission Lines. L-2011- 35 163 Attachment 6, Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Stuart, Florida. Accession Nos. ML11118A173, 36 ML11118A174. TN657.

8-5 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Completeness 2 Responses – Plant and Non-Transmission Associated Facilities. 0938-7652, Juno Beach, 3 Florida. Accession No. ML14336A331. TN974.

4 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Letter from M. Nazar to NRC, dated June 30, 5 2009, regarding "Application for Combined License for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7.” L-2009- 6 144, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML091830589. TN1229.

7 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Letter from M. Gettler to NRC, dated August 7, 8 2009, regarding "Supplemental Meteorological Data in Support of Application for Combined 9 License.” L-2009-146, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML092250585. TN1230.

10 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2010. FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Threatened and 11 Endangered Species Evaluation and Management Plan. Revision 1, Homestead, Florida. 12 Accession No. ML12240A282. TN170.

13 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2010. FPL Turkey Point Plant Annual American 14 Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. Federal Permit TE092945-1, State Permits WS06468a 15 and WX06467a, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11180A084. TN211.

16 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2010. Site Certification Application Turkey Point 17 Units 6 & 7, Amendment, Rev. 1. 0938-7652/230, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 18 ML14336A332. TN272.

19 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2010. Letter from B. Linkiewicz to M. Halpin, dated 20 May 7, 2012, regarding "FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project, Amendment to Site Certification 21 Application (PA03-45A3).” FPLNNP-10-0125, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 22 ML14216A492. TN1231.

23 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated April 26, 24 2011, regarding "Response to NRC Environmental Request for Additional Information Letter 25 1103101 (RAI 5562) Environmental Standard Review Plan Section 2.4.1—Terrestrial and 26 Wetlands Ecology." L-2011-163, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML111180713. TN94.

27 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2011. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Mitigation Plan. 28 Revision 2, 093-87652, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A222. TN1012.

29 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2011. Conceptual Earthwork and Materials Disposal 30 Plan. Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A221. TN1042.

31 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2011. FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Threatened and 32 Endangered Species Evaluation and Management Plan. Revision 1, Homestead, Florida. 33 Accession No. ML14217A138. TN1283.

34 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2011. Turkey Point Plant Annual Monitoring Report 35 Units 3 & 4 Uprate Project. Ecology and Environmental, Inc., Lancaster, New York. Accession 36 No. ML14223A017. TN1332.

8-6 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2011. Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Section 404(b)(1) 2 Alternatives Analysis. 093-87652, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11319A035. 3 TN1374.

4 FPL (Florida Power and Light). 2011. "Table 4-MDC-D-11: Tree Survey." Golder Associates, 5 Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14287A752. TN1471.

6 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2011. Letter from J. Lindsay to E. Haubold, dated 7 December 30, 2011, regarding "Annual American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report, 8 Federal Permit TE092945-2, State Permits WS06462a and WX06467a." Juno Beach, Florida. 9 Accession No. ML14336A335. TN2471.

10 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated March 7, 11 2012, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 1112081 (RAI 12 5765) ESRP Section 4.2 – Water-Related Impacts." L-2012-101, Juno Beach, Florida. 13 Accession No. ML12074A041. TN263.

14 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Letter from FPL to NRC, dated June 13, 2012, 15 regarding "Supplemental Updated Ecology Information for the Combined License Application 16 Part 3 – Environmental Report." L-2012-252, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 17 ML12167A300. TN1446.

18 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Federal Biological 19 Assessment for Six Listed Species. L-2012-432, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 20 ML123390437. TN1618.

21 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Letter from J. Lindsay to L. Williams, dated 22 December 20, 2012, regarding "Annual American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report, 23 Federal Permit TE092945-2." Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A341. TN2470.

24 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Letter from M.J. Raffenberg to C. Mulkey, 25 dated November 12, 2012, regarding "FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project Amendment to Site 26 Certification Application (PA 03-45A3)." FPLDEP-12-0370, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 27 ML14336A342. TN2582.

28 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated October 29 17, 2012, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 120329, (eRAI 30 6354 Rev 0) Related to ESRP Section 2.3.1 – Hydrology." L-2012-337, Juno Beach, Florida. 31 Accession No. ML12293A236. TN2688.

32 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Turkey Point Plant Comprehensive Pre-Uprate 33 Monitoring Report, Units 3 and 4 Uprate Project. Ecology and Environment, Inc., Lancaster, 34 New York. Accession No. ML?? TN3439.

35 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2013. Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2013–2022. 36 Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A344. TN2630.

8-7 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2013. Letter from J. Lindsay to R. Hinzman, dated 2 December 30, 2013, regarding "2013 Annual Report for the Federal Fish and Wildlife 3 Endangered Species Permit, TE092945-2." Juno Beach, Florida. TN3232.

4 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2014. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated August 5 12, 2014, regarding "Florida Power & Light Company Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 6 Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041, Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment Report 7 for the Combined License Application Part 3 – Environmental Report.” L-2014-260, Juno 8 Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A346. TN3717.

9 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2014. Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 and 7 COL 10 Application – Part 3: Environmental Report. Revision 6, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 11 ML14342A011. TN4058.

12 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding 13 Population of the Wood Stork. Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML12195A232. TN225.

14 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. 15 Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML12193A340. TN136.

16 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, (Trichechus 17 manatus latirostris). Third Revision, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. 18 ML12198A135. TN223.

19 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Draft Snail Kite Consultation Area Map. South 20 Florida Ecological Field Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12198A158. 21 TN227.

22 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern 23 Indigo Snake. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101960348. TN779.

24 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. Letter from P. Souza to F. Gillespie, dated May 5, 25 2006, regarding "Biological Opinion of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) 26 Renewal of Operating Licenses for the Two Nuclear-Powered Generating Units Located at the 27 Turkey Point Power Plant in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and Its Effects on the Endangered 28 American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus)." South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero 29 Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12194A659. TN832.

30 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Letter from P. Souza to D.S. Hobbie, dated 31 February 19, 2007, regarding "Florida Panther Effect Determination Key." South Florida 32 Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12198A091. TN230.

33 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Letter from P. Souza to D. Kinard, dated May 18, 34 2010, regarding "Minor Errors Identified in the January 25, 2010 Wood Stork Key." South 35 Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14309A099. TN226.

8-8 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus 2 maritimus mirabilis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. South Florida Ecological 3 Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12198A160. TN256.

4 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Tiny Polygala (Polygala smallii) 5-Year Review: 5 Summary and Evaluation. South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. 6 Accession No. ML14309A101. TN2606.

7 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. Species Assessment and Listing Priority 8 Assignment Form [Florida Bonneted Bat]. Arlington, Virginia. Accession No. ML12193A526. 9 TN147.

10 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species 11 Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Strymon acis bartrami (Bartram's Hairstreak 12 Butterfly). Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A104. TN2849.

13 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Natural Resources of Concern Miami-Dade, 14 Florida. South Florida Ecological Services, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12193A319. 15 TN117.

16 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Species Profile Red Knot (Calidris canutus ssp. 17 rufa). Environmental Conservation Online System, Arlington, Virginia. Accession No. 18 ML12193A526. TN146.

19 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. "Natural Resources of Concern—Miami-Dade 20 County, Florida." Information, Planning, and Conservation System, Washington, D.C. 21 Accession No. ML14309A110. TN2604.

22 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance. 23 Supplement to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status 24 for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097, Washington 25 D.C. Accession No. ML14309A077. TN3202.

26 Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2012. Floristic Inventory of South Florida 27 Database Online. Institute of Regional Conservation, Miami, Florida. Available at 28 http://regionalconservation.org/ircs/database/database.asp. TN137.

29 Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2012. "Chamaesyce deltoidea, Pineland 30 deltoid spurge, Pineland sandmat." The Floristic Inventory of South Florida Database Online, 31 Institute for Regional Conservation, Miami, Florida. Available at 32 http://regionalconservation.org/ircs/database/plants/PlantPage.asp?TXCODE=Chamdeltpine. 33 TN1322.

34 GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 35 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (editors). Cambridge University Press, 36 New York, New York. Available at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate- 37 impacts-report.pdf. TN18.

8-9 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Gerstein, E.R., L. Gerstein, S.E. Forsythe, and J.E. Blue. 1999. "The Underwater Audiogram of 2 the West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus)." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 3 105(6):3575-3583, Melville, New York. TN3426.

4 Golder (Golder Associates, Inc.). 2008. Cooling Canal System Modeling Report. Atlanta, 5 Georgia. Accession No. ML13072A713. TN1072.

6 Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, 7 R. McBride, L. Richardson, and K. Root. 2006. "How Much is Enough? Landscape-scale 8 Conservation for the Florida Panther." Biological Conservation 130:118-133, New York, New 9 York. TN3440.

10 Lietz, A.C. and M.T. Meyer. 2006. Evaluation of Emerging Contaminants of Concern at the 11 South District Wastewater Treatment Plant Based on Seasonal Sampling Events, Miami-Dade 12 County, Florida, 2004. Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5240, U.S. Geological Survey, 13 Reston, Virginia. TN1005.

14 McPherson, B.F. and R. Halley. 1996. The South Florida Environment - A Region Under 15 Stress. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1134, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 16 ML12193A218. TN98.

17 Miami-Dade County. 2011. Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Rehydration Pilot Project Pilot 18 Plant Closeout Report. Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department, Miami, Florida. 19 Accession No. ML12269A237. TN1006.

20 Miami-Dade County. 2012. "Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP)." Miami, 21 Florida. Available at http://new.miamidade.gov/business/CDMP-about.asp. TN1150.

22 Miami-Dade County. 2012. "Endangered Lands Program." Miami, Florida. Available at 23 http://www.miamidade.gov/development/lands-endangered.asp. TN1761.

24 Miksis-Olds, J.L. and P.L. Tyack. 2009. "Manatee (Trichechus manatus) Vocalization Usage in 25 Relation to Environmental Noise Levels." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 26 125(3):1806-1815, Melville, New York. TN3427.

27 Miksis-Olds, J.L., J.H.Miller, P.L. Tyack, and J.A. Nystuen. 2007. "Noise Level Correlates with 28 Manatee Use of Foraging Habitats." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121(5):3011- 29 3020, Melville, New York. TN3428.

30 National Research Council. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the 31 Process. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health, 32 Commission on Life Sciences, Washington, D.C. TN2573.

33 National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second 34 Biennial Review – 2008. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN666.

35 National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third 36 Biennial Review – 2010. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN1036.

8-10 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 National Research Council. 2012. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Fourth 2 Biennial Review – 2012. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN2685.

3 NatureServe. 2010. An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Arlington, Virginia. Available at 4 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm. TN140.

5 Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, P.W. Atkinson, A.J. Baker, K.A. Bennett, R. Carmona, K.E. 6 Clark, N.A. Clark, C. Espoz, P.M. Gonzalez, B.A. Harrington, D.E. Hernandez, K.S. Kalasz, 7 R.G. Lathrop, R.N. Matus, C.D. Minton, R.I. Morrison, M.K. Peck, W. Pitts, R.A. Robinson, and 8 I.L. Serrano. 2008. Status of the Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) in the Western Hemisphere. 9 Studies in Avian Biology No. 36, Cooper Ornithological Society, Riverside, California. TN143.

10 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007. Coastal Zone Management 11 Program Strategic Plan: Improving Management of the Nation’s Coastal Areas, FY 2007–2012. 12 Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. 13 ML14216A529. TN1244.

14 NPS (National Park Service). 2010. Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Proposed Florida Power 15 and Light Company Transmission Power Lines on Avian Resources in Everglades National 16 Park. South Florida Natural Resources Center, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. 17 ML14301A015. TN1526.

18 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 19 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Addendum to Main Report. NUREG–1437, Volume 1, 20 Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML040690720. TN289.

21 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan– 22 Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG–1555, 23 Main Report and 2007 Revisions, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- 24 rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/toc/. TN614.

25 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 26 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 5 Regarding Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. 27 NUREG–1437, Final Report, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML020280236. TN2605.

28 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Email from A. Kugler to M. Masnik, P. 29 Doub, and R. Bryce, dated November 18, 2011, regarding “Crocodile Fatality at TP.” 30 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14345A284. TN4121.

31 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. “Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3.” 32 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14217A379. TN1298.

33 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. “Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 4.” 34 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14217A573. TN1299.

35 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. "Event Notification Report: Offsite 36 Notification due to Deceased American Crocodile." July 25, 2014, Number 50306, Washington, 37 D.C. Accession No. ML14338A556. TN3718.

8-11 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Ogden, J.C., S.M. Davis, K.J. Jacobs, T. Barnes, and H.E. Fling. 2005. “The Use of 2 Conceptual Ecological Models to Guide Ecosystem Restoration in South Florida.” Wetlands 3 25(4):795-809, Fargo, North Dakota. TN196.

4 Ogden, J.C., S.M. Davis, T.K. Barnes, K.J. Jacobs, and J.H. Gentile. 2005. “Total System 5 Conceptual Ecological Model.” Wetlands 25(4):955-979, Fargo, North Dakota. TN197.

6 Owen, D. 2012. "Critical Habitat and the Challenge of Regulating Small Harms." Florida Law 7 Review, Vol 64:141-199, Gainesville, Florida. Accession No. ML14345A289. TN2490.

8 PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). 2012. Phone/Conference Call Record from C. 9 Duberstein to file dated May 30, 2012, regarding “DEIS Biological Assessment Status Report.” 10 Richland, Washington. Accession No. ML14345A285. TN4122.

11 Runge, M.C., C.A. Sanders-Reed, C.A. Langtimm, and C.J. Fonnesbeck. 2007. A Quantitative 12 Threats Analysis for the Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Open-File Report 13 2007-1086, U.S. Geological Service, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12240A299. TN199.

14 SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2005. South Dade Wetlands Conceptual 15 Land Management Plan 2005 – 2010. West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. 16 ML12198A094. TN217.

17 SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2012. "Land Management—Florida 18 Forever Work Plans and Save our Rivers Plans." West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. 19 ML14279A332. TN1760.

20 SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2013. South Florida Water Management 21 District Patrol Summary, Model Lands October 18-31, 2013. West Palm Beach, Florida. 22 Accession No. ML14328A521. TN2917.

23 Smith, K.N. 1993. Manatee Habitat and Human-Related Threats to Seagrass in Florida: A 24 Review. Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. 25 ML12198A099. TN218.

26 Sprandel, G.L., J.A. Gore, and D.T. Cobb. 2000. "Distribution of Wintering Shorebirds in 27 Coastal Florida." Journal of Field Ornithology 71(4):708-720, Ames, Iowa. TN3203.

28 State of Florida. 2014. "Final Order on Certification, In Re: Florida Power and Light Company 29 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Power Plant Siting Application No. PA 03–45A3." State of Florida 30 Siting Board, OGC Case No. 09–3107, Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 09– 31 03575–EPP, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14345A291. TN3637.

32 Titus, J.G., K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, 33 and S.J. Williams. 2009. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic 34 Region. U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), Washington, D.C. Available at 35 http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap4-1/sap4-1-final-report-all.pdf. TN1360.

8-12 Biological Assessment for the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

1 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2009. Water Resource Policies and Authorities 2 Incorporating Sea-Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs. Circular No. 1165-2- 3 211, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14267A012. TN1359.

4 USACE/SFMWD (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/South Florida Water Management District). 5 2011. Central and Southern Florida Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 6 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and 7 Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 – Main Report. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, 8 Florida. Accession No. ML12270A058. TN1038.

9 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2003. "Ecosystems of South Florida: Coast Ecosystems— 10 Mangroves and Salt Marshes." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14217A579. TN1304.

11 Zilkoski, D.B., J.H. Richards, and G.M. Young. 1992. “Results of the General Adjustment of the 12 North American Vertical Datum of 1988.” Surveying and Land Information Systems 52(3):133- 13 149, Gaithersburg, MD. TN1232.

8-13