United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20” Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 June 23, 2017 Alicia Williamson Oflice of New Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Service CPA Code: 04EF2000-2009-FA-0 180 Service Consultation Code: 04EF2000-2009-F-0098 Date Received: September 29, 2016 Consultation Initiation Date: February 8,2017 Project: Combined License for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 6 and 7 County: Miami-Dade Dear Ms. Williamson: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’ (NRC) letter dated September 29, 2016, requesting formal consultation for their licensing of Florida Power and Light (FPL) to construct two new nuclear power units (Units 6 and 7) and associated infrastructure at their Turkey Point Power Plant, and new transmission towers and lines located west and north of power plant site (Project). This document transmits the Servic&s biological opinion based on our review of the proposed Project located in Miami-Dade, Florida. and its effects on the endangered Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilisplumbeus; snail kite) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi; panther), and the threatened American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus; crocodile) and its critical habitat, as well as the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi; indigo snake), red knot (Dendroica kirilandil), and wood stork (Mycieria americana). It also provides the Service’s concurrences for the NRC’s determination that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally listed species listed in Table I. This document is submitted in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended in 1998 (Act) (87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 ci seq.). This Biological Opinion is based on information provided in the NRC’s biological assessment on the Project dated February 2015, the NRC’s final environmental impact statement on the Project dated October 2016, correspondence, meetings, emails, and other sources of information. A complete record of this consultation is on file at the South Florida Ecological Services Office in Vero Beach, Florida. Consultation History In a document to the Service dated February 2015, the NRC provided their biological assessment for the Project. The biological assessment included determinations that the Project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the crocodile, panther, snail kite, and wood stork. The NRC also determined in the biological assessment that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the indigo snake, red knot, and the additional federally listed species in Table 1, and requested the Service’s concurrence for these determinations pursuant to section 7 of the Act. On August 20, 2015, the Service met with representatives of the NRC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to discuss the Project and the biological assessment. In a letter to the Service dated September 28, 2016, the NRC provided additional infonnation to the Service on the Project that had been requested at the August 20, 2015, meeting and in subsequent communications. The NRC also determined that the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Miami tiger beetle (Cicendelafloridana); the proposed rule to list the beetle under the Act was published on December 22, 2015, and the final rule was published on October 5, 2016. In an email to the NRC dated November 3, 2016, the Service requested additional information regarding: (I) the status of the Florida bonneted bat, red knot, piping plover, and listed plants on the Project site; (2) results of a functional assessment for the wood stork foraging habitat that would be lost due to the proposed Project and associated mitigation; and (3) measures to minimize take of the crocodile. In an email dated January 10, 2017, the NRC provided the Service a portion of the additional information requested in our November 3, 2016 email. The infonnation included survey data collected on the proposed construction site of Units 6 and 7 during the winter of 2009 indicating that the red knot was observed on the site. Therefore, the Service finds that the red knot uses this portion of the Project site for wintering habitat, and the proposed action is likely to adversely affect the species. Therefore, the Service does not concur with the NRC’s determination that the proposed Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the species; the Service analyzes the effects of the Project to red knots in our Biological Opinion presented below. Similarly, the Service also notes that, based on conversations with FPL staff the indigo snake has been observed within the Project footprint on several occasions. Therefore, the Service cannot concur with the NRC determination provided in their February 2015 biological assessment stating that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the indigo snake. The Service finds that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect the indigo snake, and will result in incidental take of this species. As such, the effects of the Project on indigo snakes will be analyzed in this Biological Opinion. In an email dated February 8, 2017, FPL, through the NRC, provided the Service the remainder of the additional information requested in our email on November 3, 2016. As of February 8, 2017, the Service has received all the information necessary for initiation of fornml consultation on this proposed Project as required in the regulations governing interagency consultations (50 CFR § 402.14). BIOLOGICAL OPINION This Biological Opinion provides the Service’s opinion as to whether the proposed Project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the crocodile, indigo snake, panther, red knot, snail kite, and wood stork, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for the crocodile. (50 CFR § 402.02) ANALYTICAL. FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY DETERMThJATIONS Jeopardy Determination Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. “Jeopardize the continued existence of’ means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 CFR 402.02). The jeopardy analysis in this Biological Opinion relies on four components: (I) the Status of the Species - a description of the range-wide condition of the species, the factors responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery needs; (2) the Environmental Baseline- an analyses of the condition of the species in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and recovery of the species; (3) the Effects of the Action, including the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on the species; and (4) Cumulative Effects - an evaluation of the effects of future, non-Federal activities in the action area on the species. In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the effects of the proposed Federal action in the context of the current status of the species, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. Adverse Modification Determination Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of listed species. 3 Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features. The destruction or adverse modification definition focuses on how Federal actions affect the quantity and quality of the physical or biological features in the designated critical habitat for a listed species and, especially in the case of unoccupied habitat, on any impacts to the critical habitat itself. The Service will generally conclude that a Federal action is likely to “destroy or adversely modify” designated critical habitat if the action results in an alteration of the quantity or quality of the essential physical or biological features of designated critical habitat, or that precludes or significantly delays the capacity of that habitat to develop those features over time, and if the effect of the alteration is to appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for the conservation of the species. The Service may also consider other kinds of impacts to designated critical habitat as appropriate. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The NRC is proposing to issue to FPL two combined licenses to construct and operate two new nuclear electrical generating units, electrical transmission line systems, and associated facilities (described below) at its Turkey Point power Plant (Figures land 2). For the purposes of our analysis we have deconstructed the proposed action into five components: power complex, muck material storage, cooling and potable water, transmission line systems, and equipment and materials access to the power complex site. Power Complex The proposed Project would include the construction of a new power complex that consists of two Westinghouse API 000 reactors and steam generating units, known as Units 6 and 7, that produce a net electrical output of 1,092 megawatts per unit.