FPL TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
July 2011 09387652
Rev. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE 1.0 BACKGROUND ...... 1 2.0 PROJECT ...... 3 2.1 Site ...... 4 2.2 Non-linear Associated Facilities ...... 5 2.3 Associated Non-transmission Linear Facilities ...... 6 2.4 Transmission Corridors ...... 8 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT ...... 11 3.1 American Crocodile ...... 11 3.2 Eastern Indigo Snake ...... 14 3.3 Wood Stork ...... 14 3.4 Least Tern ...... 15 3.5 Florida Manatee ...... 16 3.6 Snail Kite ...... 17 3.7 Mangrove Rivulus ...... 17 3.8 Everglades Mink ...... 18 3.9 Florida Panther ...... 19 3.10 Other Listed Bird Species ...... 20 3.11 Listed Plant Species ...... 23 4.0 STATUS OF LISTED SPECIES WITHIN PROJECT AREA ...... 30 4.1 American Crocodile ...... 30 4.2 Eastern Indigo Snake ...... 32 4.3 Wood Stork ...... 33 4.4 Least Tern ...... 33 4.5 Florida Manatee ...... 34 4.6 Snail Kite ...... 34 4.7 Mangrove Rivulus ...... 34 4.8 Everglades Mink ...... 35 4.9 Florida Panther ...... 35 4.10 Other Listed Bird Species ...... 36 4.11 Listed Plant Species ...... 36
Rev. 1
5.0 PRE-CLEARING SURVEYS ...... 38 5.1 American Crocodile ...... 39 5.2 Eastern Indigo Snake ...... 39 5.3 Wood Stork ...... 39 5.4 Least Tern ...... 39 5.5 Florida Manatee ...... 40 5.6 Snail Kite ...... 40 5.7 Mangrove Rivulus ...... 40 5.8 Everglades Mink ...... 40 5.9 Florida Panther ...... 40 5.10 Other Listed Bird Species ...... 41 5.11 Listed Plant Species ...... 41 6.0 CONSERVATION AND MONITORING PLAN ...... 43 6.1 American Crocodile Management Program ...... 44 6.1.1 Maintenance and Preservation of Nesting, Basking, and Nursery Habitat ...... 46 6.1.2 Constraints on Traffic, Maintenance, and Construction ...... 47 6.1.3 Population Monitoring ...... 49 6.1.4 Public Outreach and Education ...... 49 6.1.5 Units 6 & 7 Crocodile Conservation and Monitoring Plan ...... 49 6.2 Eastern Indigo Snake ...... 52 6.3 Wood Stork ...... 53 6.4 Least Tern ...... 53 6.5 Florida Manatee ...... 54 6.6 Snail Kite ...... 54 6.7 Mangrove Rivulus ...... 55 6.8 Everglades Mink ...... 55 6.9 Florida Panther ...... 55 6.10 Other Listed Avian Species ...... 56 6.11 Listed Plant Species ...... 57 7.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ...... 57 7.1 Species Not Likely to be Affected ...... 57 7.2 Species Likely to be Affected ...... 59 7.2.1 American Crocodile ...... 59 7.2.2 Wood Stork ...... 60
Rev. 1
7.2.3 Least Tern ...... 60 8.0 MITIGATION PLAN ...... 61 8.1 Sea Dade Canal Crocodile Sanctuary ...... 61 8.2 Access Roadway Wildlife Protection Features ...... 62 9.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 64 10.0 REFERENCES ...... 66
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Location of Turkey Point Plant Figure 2 Units 6 & 7 Site Location and Everglades Mitigation Bank Figure 3 Turkey Point Cooling Canals/Industrial Wastewater Facility Figure 4 American Crocodile Designated Habitat Boundary Figure 5 Units 6 & 7 Aerial Plot Plan Figure 6 Associated Non-Linear Facilities, Construction Areas, Spoil Areas, Site and Adjacent Properties Figure 7 Associated Linear Facilities Figure 8 Vegetative Communities and Land Use Map of Project Area Figure 9 Critical Habitat for Manatee Figure 10 West Indian Manatee Consultation Area Figure 11 Critical Habitat for Snail Kite Figure 12 Wood Stork Colonies and Core Foraging Areas in Vicinity of West Preferred Transmission Corridor Figure 13 Wood Stork Primary and Secondary Protection Zones in Vicinity of West Preferred Transmission Corridor Figure 14 Florida Panther Consultation Area Figure 15 Panther FP21 Radio Telemetry Data Figure 16 Crocodile Nest Locations 1978-2009 Figure 17 Crocodile Nest Locations 2010 Figure 18 Crocodile Sanctuary Boundary Marker Figure 19 Conceptual Crocodile Access Road Underpass Locations Figure 20 Conceptual Crocodile Access Road Underpass Figure 21 Sea Dade Canal Crocodile Sanctuary Location Figure 22 Sea Dade Canal Crocodile Sanctuary Conceptual Design Figure 23 Typical Cross-Section SW 359th Street with Wildlife Fencing and Culverts Figure 24 Typical Cross-Section SW 359th Street Wildlife Underpass Figure 25 Typical SW 359th Street Overhead View – Wildlife Underpass Figure 26 Proposed Location for Wildlife Underpass
Rev. 1
APPENDICES Appendix A Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Species of Special Concern in Miami- Dade County (FNAI, 2011) Appendix B Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Special Purpose Permits #WX06467a and #TE092945-2 Appendix C Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work Appendix D Estimated Impacts to Florida Panther Habitats (BDA, 2009) Appendix E Avian Protection Plan
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 1 - 093-87652
1.0 BACKGROUND The Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation and Management Plan addresses the status and habitat preferences of listed species in the area of the Site and the associated facilities (Project area), and describes FPL’s commitments regarding avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts to be conducted pre-construction, during construction, and during operation of the Project in consultation with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), and Miami-Dade County (MDC). Impacts to threatened and endangered species will be avoided or minimized through preservation of all habitats identified as critical to threatened and endangered species to the greatest extent practicable, commitment to conduct pre-clearing surveys prior to construction, incorporation of wildlife protection features in access roadway designs, and adoption of mitigation measures to address any unavoidable impacts, in consultation with the USFWS, FWC, and MDC.
The Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) Turkey Point Plant (Plant) property is located on the shore of Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade County, Florida, approximately 25 miles south of Miami, 8 miles east of Florida City, and 9 miles southeast of Homestead, Florida (Figure 1). Access to the Plant is primarily via SW 344th Street/Palm Drive from its intersection with U.S. Highway 1. The Plant is adjacent to the approximately 13,000-acre Everglades Mitigation Bank (EMB), also owned by FPL (Figure 2), and lies west of the boundary of the Biscayne National Park (BNP), which extends along the shoreline both north and south of the generating facilities. Everglades National Park (ENP) is approximately 13 miles west of the Plant.
The Turkey Point Plant was originally constructed in 1964 with a once-through cooling system, which discharged warm water to Biscayne Bay. As mitigation for thermal impacts to the biota of Biscayne Bay, the use of the once-through cooling system was discontinued in the mid 1970s in favor of the 5,900-acre closed-loop cooling canal system (cooling canal system) that currently serves Units 1 through 4 for cooling and all five existing units as an industrial wastewater treatment facility. Initially, a series of test cooling canals, a perched impoundment (the “moat” and associated berms), and a test cooling tower were constructed in 1969 north of the current location of the industrial wastewater treatment facility. The industrial wastewater treatment facility/cooling canal system was completed in 1974; the canals of the existing industrial wastewater treatment facility are approximately 5 miles long, 2 miles wide, and consist of 32 discharge and 7 return canals totaling approximately 168 miles in length (Figure 3). Of the 5,900 acres contained within the cooling
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 2 - 093-87652 canals/industrial wastewater treatment facility, approximately 1,500 acres are berms, which separate the canals and were created from spoils material from canal construction.
American crocodiles (Crocodylus acutus) were first observed at Turkey Point in 1976 and nesting was first documented upon berms within the cooling canals in 1978 (Mazzotti and Brandt, 1994). As a result, FPL developed a crocodile management plan, which focused on the creation and enhancement of habitats for crocodile nesting, as well as monitoring the reproductive success, growth, and survival of hatchlings. FPL’s efforts have resulted in a significant increase in the number of crocodile nests and hatchlings in the cooling canals over nearly three decades, from 2 nests and 30 hatchlings in the late 1970s to 28 known nests and 520 hatchlings in 2008 and 24 known nests and 548 hatchlings in 2009.
The majority of the cooling canals/industrial wastewater treatment facility and the adjacent canals [the Interceptor Ditch, the L-31E Canal, the Sea Dade Canal (C-107) and the Model Land Canals] (Figure 3) are included within the area designated as critical habitat for the American crocodile, which is classified as threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and endangered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) (Figure 4).
In addition to the American crocodile, several listed species have been observed or are likely to occur within the Project area. The eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) has been observed on FPL property south of the cooling canals/industrial wastewater treatment facility within the EMB. A variety of avian species forage within the cooling canals/industrial wastewater treatment facility, transmission line corridors, and vicinity, including tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), snowy egret (Egretta thula), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), wood stork (Mycteria americana), least tern (Sternula antillarum; formerly Sterna antillarum), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), and white-crowned pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala). Historical telemetry records indicate a Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) utilized portions of the Turkey Point Plant property west of the L-31E Canal and portions of the transmission line corridors. The snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) has been observed within the transmission line corridors and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has been observed at the Turkey Point Plant. The bald eagle was removed from the USFWS endangered species list on June 28, 2007 and is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, but remains protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) occurs within Biscayne Bay and South Florida Water Management
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 3 - 093-87652
District (SFWMD) canals in the vicinity of the Plant and transmission line corridors. In addition, a variety of listed plant species are known to occur on the Plant property, transmission line corridors, and surrounding vicinity.
Additional listed animal species known to occur in the nearby BNP and ENP that may occur within the Plant property, transmission line rights-of-way, or vicinity include the mangrove rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus), Everglades mink (Mustela vison evergladensis), limpkin (Aramus guarauna), American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus), and brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)), although these species have not been observed within the Project area. According to the FWC’s database, no bald eagle nests occur within 20 miles of the Site.
2.0 PROJECT FPL is seeking to construct and operate two approximately 1,100-MW (net) nuclear units on the existing approximately 11,000-acre Turkey Point plant property located in unincorporated Miami- Dade County, Florida, (the Project). The Project will include the two nuclear units and other associated facilities.
Figures 5 and 6 present the Site, associated facilities and areas used during construction. The approximately 300-acre Units 6 & 7 Site (the Site) is entirely located within the existing industrial wastewater treatment facility/cooling canal system (cooling canal system). It includes the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 plant area, where the generating facilities and associated infrastructure such as the Clear Sky substation and makeup water reservoir will be located, as well as laydown areas to the west.
Associated facilities and areas used during construction contained within the Turkey Point plant property include laydown and parking areas, an access road on SW 359th Street, the nuclear administration building, training building and parking area, FPL reclaimed water treatment facility and pipelines, radial collector wells and pipelines, equipment barge unloading area, spoils areas, potable water pipelines, and transmission corridors exiting the property to the north and west. Associated facilities located outside of the Turkey Point plant property include the temporary construction access roadway improvements, reclaimed and potable water pipelines, East Preferred Corridor, and West Preferred Corridor (Figure 7). The following summarizes the existing habitats and proposed impacts within the Site and areas designated for construction of associated facilities.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 4 - 093-87652
2.1 Site The approximately 300-acre Site consists of the 218-acre plant area for Units 6 & 7 and adjacent areas designated for laydown. Existing vegetation/land use within the Site includes hypersaline mud flats (FLUCFCS 650), man-made active cooling canals (FLUCFCS 510), man-made remnant canals (FLUCFCS 511), previously filled areas/roadways (FLUCFCS 744), mangrove heads (FLUCFCS 612-A) associated with historical tidal channels, dwarf mangroves (FLUCFCS 612-B), open water/discharge canal (FLUCFCS 531) associated with the proposed laydown area on the western portion of the Site, wet spoil berms associated with remnant canals (FLUCFCS 743-Wet), and upland spoil areas (Figure 8).
Construction on the Site will impact a total of approximately 250 acres of previously disturbed wetlands1 within the industrial wastewater treatment facility, primarily in the form of hypersaline mud flats (approximately 187.5 acres) whose water elevation is artificially maintained.
Two remnant cooling canals bisect the mudflat area, previously utilized as part of the historic intake/discharge cooling water system of the Turkey Point Plant prior to construction of the closed- loop cooling canals. These remnant canals no longer connect to Biscayne Bay. The historical tidal connections to Biscayne Bay were severed during construction of the cooling canal system, which has resulted in hypersaline conditions, altered hydrology, and elevated water temperatures in the cooling canals. Whereas undisturbed tidal creeks of Biscayne Bay typically contain dense mangrove growth along the entire creek channel, the channels within the Site contain sparse pockets of stunted mangroves, likely due to stress caused by the hypersaline conditions and drastic fluctuations in water levels.
The laydown area in the western portion of the Site contains approximately 12 acres of open water associated with an active cooling canal. This area experiences highly variable hydrology resulting from operation of the existing Turkey Point Plant. Due to the elevated water temperatures, high salinity, and altered hydrology, much of the substrate is bare sediment. Approximately 17 acres of dwarf mangroves and dead buttonwood are located within the proposed laydown area. The extreme low temperatures experienced in the winter of 1989 and the impact of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 further stressed the vegetative community within the Site, resulting in high mortalities, particularly of buttonwood.
1 The use of the term “wetlands” with reference to the Site is used solely as a descriptive term and is not used as a regulatory or jurisdictional term.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 5 - 093-87652
Spoils material removed from the Site during construction will be placed upon approximately 200 acres of existing spoils areas on the southern boundary of the cooling canals and along the existing berms of the Grand Canal as illustrated in Figure 6.
2.2 Non-linear Associated Facilities Nuclear Administration Building, Training Building and Parking Area Land use/land cover in the area proposed for construction of the nuclear administration building, training building and parking area includes isolated parcels of mangrove swamp (FLUCFCS 612), mangrove/coastal plain willow (FLUCFCS 612/618), and fill areas/roadways (FLUCFCS 744) surrounded by the existing Turkey Point Plant infrastructure. These areas comprise approximately 32 acres, including approximately 18.5 acres of isolated mangroves, 7.6 acres of isolated mangrove/willow wetlands, and 5.9 acres of fill areas located south of the existing Units 3 and 4 parking lots.
FPL Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant An approximately 44 acre FPL reclaimed water treatment facility is proposed north of the industrial wastewater treatment facility between the L-31E Canal and the existing Turkey Point plant access road. The originally proposed location for the FPL reclaimed water treatment facility is an area of sawgrass marsh and scattered dwarf mangroves (FLUCFCS 6411/612-B) located adjacent to the existing Turkey Point plant access road north of the test cooling canals (Figure 6). The potential alternative location for the FPL reclaimed water treatment plant is located upon the historically dredged “moat” area to the west of the test cooling canals. The area currently consists of upland spoil piles dominated by Australian pine (FLUCFCS 437), excavated open water canals and ditches (FLUCFCS 510/511), an upland access pathway (FLUCFCS 814), sawgrass marsh (FLUCFCS 6411), dwarf mangroves (FLUCFCS 612-B), and exotic wetland hardwoods (FLUCFCS 619) dominated by Australian pine.
Radial Collector Wells Four radial collector well caissons will be located in uplands on the Turkey Point peninsula to the east of the existing Turkey Point Plant. The footprint for each caisson will be approximately 25 to 30 ft in diameter. Vegetative communities present within the Turkey Point peninsula include previously filled areas/roadways (FLUCFCS 744) and adjacent coastal mangrove swamp (FLUCFCS 612). The caissons will be located within previously filled areas of the peninsula.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 6 - 093-87652
Equipment Barge Unloading Area In order to facilitate equipment barge unloading, a portion of the existing barge unloading area (FLUCFCS 512) will be expanded through excavation of approximately 0.21 acres of adjacent uplands. Approximately 0.44 acres of uplands will be used for construction of concrete aprons adjacent to the excavated equipment barge unloading area. Upland portions of the equipment barge unloading area consist of land currently classified as electric power facilities (FLUCFCS 831). Approximately 0.1 acre of dredging will be required to connect the equipment barge unloading area to the existing turning basin.
2.3 Associated Non-transmission Linear Facilities Reclaimed Water Delivery Pipelines The reclaimed water pipeline corridor is approximately nine miles in length, starting at the Miami- Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) South District Wastewater Treatment Plant and ending at the FPL reclaimed water treatment facility. The reclaimed water pipeline corridor is located within or adjacent to existing roadways, canals, and transmission line rights-of-way between the South District Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Site. Dominant land use and vegetative communities within the corridor include mangrove (FLUCFCS 612) and freshwater marsh wetlands (FLUCFCS 641), tree nurseries (FLUCFCS 241), Brazilian pepper (FLUCFCS 422), several man- made canals (FLUCFCS 510), maintained grassed roadside rights-of-way (FLUCFCS 814), exotic wetland hardwoods (FLUCFCS 619), and mixed hardwood wetlands (FLUCFCS 617). Pipeline installation will require temporary disturbance of an approximately 75-foot wide right-of-way within of the pipeline corridor to facilitate trench excavation. Areas of temporary impact will be restored following pipeline construction.
Treated Reclaimed Water Delivery Pipelines From the potential alternative location for the FPL reclaimed water treatment facility, the treated reclaimed water delivery pipelines will be installed beneath upland access roads and fill areas (FLUCFCS 814 and 744) on the northern edge of the industrial wastewater treatment facility east then south to the Site. From the originally proposed location for the FPL reclaimed water treatment facility, installation of the treated reclaimed water delivery pipelines to the Site would require temporary impact to approximately 3.4 acres of sawgrass/dwarf mangrove wetlands (FLUCFCS 6411/612-B) and mixed wetland hardwoods (FLUCFCS 617).
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 7 - 093-87652
Radial Collector Well Delivery Pipelines From the radial collector well caissons located on the Turkey Point peninsula, approximately 1.6 miles of radial collector well delivery pipelines will be installed underground to the Site. Vegetative communities along the radial collector well delivery pipelines include previously filled areas/roadways (FLUCFCS 744) and adjacent coastal mangrove swamp (FLUCFCS 612). Pipeline installation will require approximately 3 acres of temporary impact to mangrove wetlands associated with trench excavation. Areas of temporary impact will be restored following pipeline construction.
Temporary Construction Access Roadway Improvements Temporary construction access roadway improvements are necessary to ensure safe, secure access during construction and facilitate the most cost-effective construction schedule for the Project. The improvements to existing paved roadways consist of widening from two lanes to four lanes the following: SW 328th Street/North Canal Drive from SW 137th Avenue/Tallahassee Road to SW 117th Avenue (approximately two miles); SW 344th Street/Palm Drive from SW 137th Avenue/Tallahassee Road West to SW 137th Avenue/Tallahassee Road East (approximately 0.3 mile); and SW 117th Avenue from SW 328th Street/North Canal Drive to SW 344th Street/Palm Drive (approximately one mile).
The improvements to existing unpaved roadways consist of the following: SW 359th Street will be improved to three lanes from SW 137th Avenue/Tallahassee Road to SW 117th Avenue; and to four lanes from SW 117th Avenue to the Units 6 & 7 construction parking areas and Site (approximately five miles). This segment will require a bridge over the L-31E Canal. SW 137th Avenue/Tallahassee Road will be improved to three lanes from SW 344th Street/Palm Drive south to SW 359th Street (approximately one mile). SW 117th Avenue will be improved to four lanes from SW 344th Street/Palm Drive south to SW 359th Street (approximately one mile).
In addition, intersection improvements at six locations will be made to accommodate peak construction traffic.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 8 - 093-87652
The roadway improvements are located adjacent to and along established road and transmission rights-of-way. A total of approximately 130 acres would be disturbed, including approximately 30 acres of existing roadways and 82 acres of wetlands in the form of freshwater marshes (FLUCFCS 641), exotic wetland hardwoods (FLUCFCS 619), dwarf mangroves (FLUCFCS 612-B), mixed hardwood wetlands (FLUCFCS 617), and canals and ditches (FLUCFCS 510/511). The roadway improvements are uniquely required for safe and efficient construction of the facility, but not all are necessary post-construction. Although FPL is providing compensatory mitigation for all wetland impacts associated with the temporary construction access roadway improvements as if they are permanent, FPL will also remove lanes required for temporary construction access following construction of Units 6 & 7 and restore the temporarily-impacted wetlands. Permanent access road facilities on SW 359th Avenue will be limited to an 18-foot transmission line access road.
Potable Water Pipelines The potable water pipelines corridor is approximately nine miles in length and 330 ft wide, extending from the MDWASD potable water main near Florida’s Turnpike and SW 137th Avenue/Tallahassee Road to the Site. The potable water pipelines rights-of-way will be located within and/or adjacent to existing or planned roads and rights-of-way. The pipelines are proposed to be installed under the existing medians or roads on SW 137th Avenue to SW 328th Street, then within the proposed temporary construction access roadway improvements from SW 328th Street to the Site.
2.4 Transmission Corridors
Within the PPSA certification proceeding, multiple transmission line corridors (proposed by FPL and others) are under consideration. This plan addresses FPL’s East and West Preferred Corridors. In the event one or more other corridors are certified, this plan will be updated as appropriate.
New 500- and 230-kV electric transmission lines are needed to connect the Units 6 & 7 proposed Clear Sky substation to various other existing FPL substations in Miami-Dade County. Approximately 88.7 miles of transmission corridors are being proposed [52 miles West Preferred Corridor and 36.7 miles East Preferred Corridor]. Within the West Preferred Corridor, FPL is also proposing to certify an expansion of its Levee substation in northern Miami-Dade County and two access-only corridor laterals (total of 5.25 miles) that will be used solely for access to the new transmission lines.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 9 - 093-87652
West Preferred Corridor From the proposed on-Site Clear Sky substation, two 500-kV lines to the Levee substation and one 230-kV line to the Pennsuco substation are proposed within an approximately 52 mile corridor of typically 330 feet in width referred to as the West Preferred Corridor. Two 500-kV lines are proposed west from the Site and then north to the existing Levee substation located in unincorporated Miami-Dade County east of State Road (SR) 997/Krome Avenue and north of U.S. Highway 41 (U.S. 41)/Tamiami Trail. FPL currently has available right-of-way (either in fee or easement) for a significant portion of this distance. The total length of this transmission corridor to Levee substation is approximately 43.6 miles. FPL acquired this right-of-way in the 1960s and early 1970s in anticipation of the future need for electrical facilities to serve electrical load growth in Miami-Dade County and southeast Florida. Approximately 7.4 miles of this right-of-way was encompassed by the addition of the ENP Expansion Area to the ENP in 1989. As a consequence, a total of approximately 12 miles of FPL’s existing right-of-way is proposed for relocation, including a short portion that was encompassed by the 8.5 Square Mile Area (SMA) project (immediately south of the ENP). The remaining portion of the right-of-way to be relocated extends across the southeast corner of Water Conservation Area 3B (immediately north of the ENP). This 12-mile portion of the existing FPL right-of-way is the West Secondary Corridor. The proposed relocation of this existing right-of-way is included in the West Preferred Corridor. The Clear Sky-Pennsuco 230-kV line is proposed within the same corridor as the Clear Sky-Levee 500-kV lines, but will bypass the Levee substation and continue to the Pennsuco substation located within an existing multi-circuit transmission line right-of- way that will be used in part for the proposed Clear Sky-Pennsuco 230-kV transmission line. This 230-kV-only portion of the West Preferred Corridor is approximately 8.4 miles long.
Two access corridors, the Tamiami Trail and Krome Avenue Access Corridors, are proposed within the West Preferred Corridor to provide access to the transmission line right-of-way. No transmission line structures will be built in these Access Corridors, although access roads or road improvements may be required. In addition, expansion of the existing Levee Substation is required to facilitate connection with the Clear Sky-Levee transmission lines.
The landscape within the West Preferred Corridor reflects human-induced changes, as much of the historical vegetation that occurred within the corridor and in the region has been cleared for residential, agricultural, or industrial uses. Upland communities found within the corridor(s) range from areas of relatively undisturbed pine rockland communities to areas vegetated by a variety of nuisance or weedy plants such as Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, or Australian pine. Aquatic
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 10 - 093-87652 communities within the West Preferred Corridor include canals, ditches, channelized river/stream/waterways, and reservoirs. Most are vegetated by a variety of floating or emergent herbs, many of which are considered nuisance species by the Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council. No natural streams or waterways occur within the corridor. A variety of herbaceous and forested wetlands occur within the West Preferred Corridor, primarily in the form of freshwater marsh, wet prairies, exotic wetland hardwoods, and mixed wetland hardwoods. The quality of wetlands ranges from those exhibiting expected floristic and structural characteristics providing valuable wildlife habitat to those that have been so impacted by drainage or location, within/next to intensive agricultural or developed areas, that inherent functional values such as wildlife habitat, water quality, and flood attenuation have been severely degraded. The extensive drainage system (canals/ditches) that has been constructed in the region has drastically altered the historic hydrology of many wetland communities in the corridors with a concomitant change to structure and functional attributes. This is often manifested by the proliferation of transitional or even upland species, as well as nuisance exotics in many wetlands within the region.
A conservative scenario was utilized to estimate impacts associated with construction of transmission facilities within the West Preferred Corridor, to be revised following final route selection and refinement of linear facility engineering design. This enveloping approach results in a worst-case scenario of wetland impacts that will be reduced during final engineering design. Using conservative assumptions, the total estimated wetland impacts resulting from construction of the associated linear facilities include up to 308 acres of permanent wetland impact for the associated transmission facilities in the West Preferred Corridor.
East Preferred Corridor From the proposed Clear Sky substation, FPL proposes a single-circuit 230-kV transmission line connecting to the existing Davis substation and another 230-kV transmission line connecting the Davis substation to the existing Miami substation. The Davis substation is located in unincorporated Miami-Dade County at the intersection of SW 136th Street and SW 127th Avenue. The Miami substation is located in the City of Miami at the northeast intersection of SW 2nd Avenue and the Miami River. These new 230-kV lines are proposed within an approximately 36.7 mile corridor identified as the East Preferred Corridor.
Most of the land within the East Preferred Corridor reflects significant human-induced changes, as much of the historic vegetation that occurred along the corridor and in the region has been cleared for
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 11 - 093-87652 residential, agricultural, or industrial uses. Although most of the areas within the East Preferred Corridor have been altered, a variety of plant communities of varying quality exist within the corridor, primarily within the segment between the proposed Clear Sky substation and Davis substation. Upland communities found within the corridor are typically disturbed habitats supporting nuisance exotic species such as Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. Surface waters are limited to canals, ditches, channelized river/stream/waterway, and reservoirs. Forested and herbaceous wetlands in the East Preferred Corridor are dominated by mangroves, mixed wetland hardwoods, and freshwater marsh/wet prairie systems. The quality of wetlands within the East Preferred Corridor varies due to relative colonization by exotic species, hydrologic alterations, and proximity of development. Through the utilization of existing transmission infrastructure and avoidance and minimization efforts in corridor selection, wetland impacts associated with the East Preferred Corridor are estimated to be less than 0.5 acre.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT There are 194 state or federally listed threatened, endangered, or species of special concern that may potentially occur in Miami-Dade County according to the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). A complete list of state or federally listed threatened, endangered, or species of special concern that may potentially occur in Miami-Dade County is found in Appendix A. The following describes the species and critical habitat for the subset of species that may potentially occur in the Project Area based on consultation with USFWS, FWC and MDC during a meeting with FPL on October 21, 2010.
3.1 American Crocodile [From Ecological Risk Assessment for American Crocodile in the Cooling canals at FPL’s Turkey Point Facility – ESE, Inc. 2000, except where noted].
The American crocodile was first designated as endangered by the USFWS in 1975, and reclassified as threatened in 2007. The American crocodile is a primarily coastal crocodilian that occurs in parts of Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and, at the northern end of its range, in southern Florida. The current distribution of the American crocodile in Florida is limited to extreme south Florida, including coastal areas of Miami-Dade, Monroe, Collier, and Lee Counties. They are found primarily in mangrove swamps and along low-energy mangrove-lined bays, creeks, and inland swamps (Kushlan and Mazzotti, 1989).
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 12 - 093-87652
The primary factor threatening the Florida populations of the American crocodile has been the loss of nesting habitat due to human development. Nesting populations were restricted to portions of the shoreline of northeastern Florida Bay and Barnes Sound in 1975, including one population on the northeastern shore within ENP and one on the eastern shore of Barnes Sound in northern Key Largo. At that time, crocodiles were declared federally endangered. In 1978, a third nesting colony was discovered within the Turkey Point plant property. It appears likely that this population colonized the area after development of the industrial wastewater facility, utilizing the artificial substrates of the canal berms as nesting substrate.
To protect crocodiles, the National Park Service (NPS) established a crocodile sanctuary in northeastern Florida Bay in 1980, the USFWS acquired the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge on Key Largo, and FPL implemented their Site Management Program in 1983. Monitoring programs were established around all three nesting areas, focusing on reproductive success and growth and survival of hatchlings.
Ogden (1978a) estimated that between 1,000 to 2,000 American crocodiles existed in south Florida in the early 20th century, but the population had been reduced to approximately 100 to 400 adults in the 1960s and 1970s (Ogden, 1978b). The American crocodile population in southern Florida has increased substantially over the last 20 years. The USFWS (1999) estimated the total population at 500 to 1,000 animals in 1999. Recent population estimates range between 1,400 and 2,000 animals, not including hatchlings, within the range of the population size estimated at the turn of the century, evidence that led to the USFWS to re-classify the American crocodile from endangered to threatened in 2007. The recent increase is best represented by changes in nesting effort. Survey data (gathered with consistent sampling effort) indicate that nesting has increased from an average of 16 nests per year during 1978 to 1982, to an average of 38 nests per year during the period 1995 through 1998. Female crocodiles produce only one clutch per year, so the population of productive females has more than doubled in the last 16 years. It is likely that the male population has also increased in rough proportion to the females (USFWS, 1999). The distribution of crocodiles during the non- nesting season may vary considerably over years since adult crocodiles can disperse great distances. However, the majority of crocodiles are present in the vicinity of the documented nesting areas (Kushlan and Mazzotti, 1989).
In 1970, nesting in ENP was restricted to northeastern Florida Bay, with the westernmost nests near Black Betsy Key. During the five-year period from 1978 to 1982, more than 60 percent of Florida’s
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 13 - 093-87652 crocodile nests were in ENP on the northeastern shore of Florida Bay. However, during the past five years, less than half the nests were in ENP, as nesting effort has increased dramatically within the Turkey Point plant property during the past 20 years. Within ENP, the nesting area has expanded approximately 30 km to the west since 1970 (Mazzotti, 1999), extending now as far west as Cape Sable.
The nesting populations in ENP, the Turkey Point plant property, and Key Largo are not isolated. Crocodiles have been documented to range at least 30 km, and tagged hatchlings from Turkey Point and ENP have been recovered near the Key Largo nesting area. Juvenile and subadult males are forced to disperse to avoid adult males, which would attack them. Dispersal is beneficial to the genetic diversity of the population, but limits the ability of mark and recapture programs to accurately quantify survival of hatchlings by nesting area.
Mazzotti (1989) defined the optimal nesting habitat requirements for American crocodiles. The most important requirements for nesting success of crocodiles are the presence of elevated, well-drained nesting substrate adjacent to relatively deep (> 1 meter) intermediate salinity (10 to 20 ppt) water, protected from the effects of wind and wave action, and free from human disturbance. The man-made nesting areas along canal banks (berms) at the Basin Hills area of the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge and the Turkey Point industrial wastewater facility provide nearly ideal nesting conditions. The exception is the relatively high salinity in the industrial wastewater facility, although this has been ameliorated by the creation of freshwater ponds in the interior of the berms and by the existence of nearby lower salinity canals.
In contrast, in northeastern Florida Bay in the ENP, the most successful natural nesting areas are sandy beaches often kilometers away from good nursery habitat. Creek nest sites in ENP are within good nursery habitat, but are at low elevation, making them vulnerable to flooding (Mazzotti, 1989, 1999). Nests on artificial substrates in the Flamingo/Cape Sable area of ENP are also in nursery habitat, but are at risk to depredation by raccoons (Mazzotti, 1999). Hence, the unintentional creation of man-made nest sites within the Turkey Point cooling canal system and on North Key Largo has provided good conditions for nesting, and to some extent, has compensated for the loss of nesting areas elsewhere in south Florida. One of the most striking aspects of nesting habits of the American crocodile is its ability to find and use artificial substrates for nesting. In fact, virtually the entire increase of crocodiles nesting in south Florida is due to crocodiles nesting on artificial substrates similar to those of the Turkey Point cooling canals.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 14 - 093-87652
3.2 Eastern Indigo Snake The eastern indigo snake is a large, black, non-venomous snake widely distributed throughout central and south Florida, but primarily occurring in sandhill habitats in northern Florida and southern Georgia (USFWS, 1999). The eastern indigo snake is classified as threatened by both the FWC and USFWS. No critical habitat has been designated for this species. In extreme south Florida, eastern indigo snakes are found in tropical hardwood hammocks, pine rocklands, freshwater marshes, abandoned agricultural land, coastal prairie, mangrove swamps, and human altered habitats (Steiner et al. 1983). Given their preference for upland habitats, eastern indigo snakes are not commonly found in great numbers in the wetland complexes of the Everglades region, even though they are found in pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and mangrove forests (Duellman and Schwartz, 1958; Steiner et al., 1983; Kuntz, 1977). It is suspected that they prefer hammocks and pine forests, because most observations occur in these habitats disproportionately to their area (Steiner et al., 1983). Major threats include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, with associated highway mortality.
3.3 Wood Stork The wood stork is a large (up to 1.15 m) wading bird inhabiting marshes, cypress swamps, and mangrove swamps, classified by both the USFWS and FWC as endangered. No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Their plumage is white, except for iridescent black primary and secondary feathers and a short black tail. On adult wood storks, the rough scaly skin of the head and neck is unfeathered and blackish in color.
The southeastern U.S. is the northern extent of the wood stork’s breeding range. Wood storks nest in large colonies with other wading birds, and typically construct their nests in medium to tall trees that occur in stands located either in swamps or on islands surrounded by relatively broad expanses of open water (Palmer, 1962; Rodgers et al., 1996; Ogden, 1991). Nesting wood storks primarily feed in wetlands between 5 and 40 miles from the colony, and occasionally at distances as great as 75 miles (Ogden, 1990). Storks forage in a wide variety of shallow wetlands, wherever small fish reach high enough densities, and in water that is shallow and open enough for the birds to be successful in their hunting efforts (Ogden et al., 1978; Browder, 1984; Coulter, 1987). Due to their tactile feeding method, good feeding conditions usually occur in relatively calm water, where depths are between 10 and 25 cm, and where the water column is uncluttered by dense patches of aquatic vegetation (Coulter and Bryan, 1993). Typical foraging sites throughout the wood stork’s range include freshwater marshes and stock ponds, shallow, seasonally flooded roadside or agricultural ditches, narrow tidal
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 15 - 093-87652 creeks or shallow tidal pools, managed impoundments, and depressions in cypress heads and swamp sloughs. Almost any shallow wetland depression that concentrates fish may be used as feeding habitat. In the wet season, wood storks typically feed in the shallow water of short-hydroperiod wetlands, while during the dry season, foraging shifts to longer hydroperiod interior wetlands as they progressively dry down.
The USFWS (1990) defined primary and secondary protection zones (radius up to 1,500 and 2,500 feet, respectively) surrounding active wood stork colonies, and recommended restrictions within each zone to minimize colony disturbance. The newer USFWS draft guidelines (2006) recommend the primary zone be up to 1,300 feet with no change to the secondary zone.
The USFWS has defined Core Foraging Areas (CFAs) surrounding nesting wood stork colonies within north, central, and south Florida as 13, 15, and 18.6 miles, respectively. The circular CFA around a nesting colony is considered the minimum area necessary to provide enough prey biomass to support the adults and new offspring during a nesting season. The USFWS requires the loss of wetlands that provide suitable foraging habitat within a wood stork colony CFA to be replaced through in-kind compensation or offset through habitat improvements that would increase the quantity and/or quality of potential foraging habitat.
3.4 Least Tern The least tern is classified as threatened by the FWC, but is not listed federally by the USFWS. It is the smallest North American tern, light gray above and white underneath, with a short, deeply forked tail, black cap and nape, white forehead and black line running from the crown through eye to the base of its yellowish-orange bill. The least tern is a migratory bird, wintering in Central and South America and moving north to breeding grounds during the summer months. They begin nesting in mid-April in central and southern Florida, and are typically absent from Florida from November through February (FWC, 2011a). No critical habitat designations exist for the least tern.
Preferred habitats are coastal areas throughout Florida, including beaches, lagoons, bays, and estuaries. Historically, the breeding range for least terns in Florida has included all coastlines and some interior locations. Nesting areas have a substrate of well-drained sand or gravel and usually have little vegetation. The least tern is a ground nesting species typically utilizing beach habitat, though they increasingly use artificial nesting sites, including gravel rooftops, dredge spoil islands or other dredged material deposits, construction sites, causeways, and mining lands (FNAI, 2001). Gore
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 16 - 093-87652 et al. (2007) estimated the Florida population of breeding least terns at 12,562 pairs, based on surveys from 1998 – 2000. Rooftops are currently estimated to support over 80% of the breeding population, which represents a significant shift from the late 1970s when it was estimated that only 21% of the state’s least terns nested on rooftops (Fisk, 1978; Zambrano and Warraich, 2010).
3.5 Florida Manatee The Florida manatee is one of two subspecies of the West Indian manatee, inhabiting fresh, brackish, and marine waters throughout Florida, the Greater Antilles, Central America, and South America (USFWS, 1999). It is classified as endangered by both the FWC and the USFWS. The USFWS has established a Consultation Area for this species and has also designated critical habitat for the manatee (Figures 9 and 10). The Florida manatee feeds on submergent, emergent, and floating vegetation (USFWS, 1999) and often forages in shallow grass beds that are adjacent to deeper channels (Hartman, 1979; Powell and Rathbun, 1984). On average, adults can reach a length of 3.5 m and weigh 1000 kg. Both male and female manatees can reach sexual maturity by age 3 and may be reproductive throughout their lives with a minimum 2-year interval between calves for females (Marmontel, 1993). Life expectancy is estimated to be approximately 50 years (Marmontel et al., 1992).
The seasonal distribution of the manatee is affected by water temperatures, as water temperatures below 20 degrees Celsius increase susceptibility to cold stress and cold-induced mortality (USFWS, 1999). The only year-round populations of manatees occur throughout the coastal and inland waterways of peninsular Florida and Georgia (Hartman, 1974). In south Florida, prominent year- round populations can be found in the Indian River, Biscayne Bay, Everglades and Ten Thousand Island area, Estero Bay and Caloosahatchee River area, and Charlotte Harbor area (USFWS, 1996). On the west coast, manatees winter at Crystal River, Homosassa Springs, and other warm mineral springs (Powell and Rathbun, 1984; Rathbun et al., 1990). In the winter, higher numbers of manatees are seen on the east coast at the natural warm waters of Blue Spring and near man-made warm water sources on or near the Indian River Lagoon, at Titusville, Vero Beach, Ft. Pierce, Riviera Beach, Port Everglades, Ft. Lauderdale, and throughout Biscayne Bay and nearby rivers and canals (USFWS, 1996). They also aggregate near industrial warm water outflows in Tampa Bay, the warmer waters of the Caloosahatchee and Orange rivers (from the Ft. Myers power plant), and in inland waters of the Everglades and Ten Thousand Islands (USFWS, 1999).
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 17 - 093-87652
3.6 Snail Kite The snail kite is classified as endangered by both the FWC and USFWS. It is a medium-sized raptor with a square-tipped tail and distinctive white base, red eyes, and a slender decurved bill adapted for extracting the kite’s primary prey, the apple snail (Pomacea paludosa). Sexual dimorphism is exhibited in this species, with adult males appearing uniformly slate gray while adult females are brown with cream streaking in the face, throat, and breast (USFWS, 1999). The Florida population of snail kites is restricted to the watersheds of the Everglades, lakes Okeechobee and Kissimmee, and the upper St. Johns River, with a highly specific diet composed almost entirely of apple snails (USFWS, 1999). Snail kites are nomadic in response to water depths, hydroperiod, food availability, and other habitat changes (Sykes, 1978, 1983; Beissinger and Takekawa, 1983; Bennetts et al., 1994). The principal threat to the snail kite is the loss or degradation of wetlands in central and south Florida.
Critical habitat was designated for the snail kite in 1977 (Figure 11) and includes the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR, Water Conservation Area 2, portions of Water Conservation Area 3, portions of ENP, western portions of Lake Okeechobee, the Strazzulla and Cloud Lake reservoirs in St. Lucie County, and portions of the St. Johns Marsh in Indian River County.
Snail kite habitat consists of freshwater marshes and the shallow vegetated edges of lakes (natural and man-made) where apple snails can be found (USFWS, 1999). Snail kites require foraging areas that are relatively clear and open in order to visually search for apple snails, with interspersed emergent vegetation which enables apple snails to climb near the surface to feed, breathe, and lay eggs (USFWS, 1999). Nearly continuous flooding of wetlands for more than one year is needed to support apple snail populations that in turn sustain foraging by the snail kite (Sykes, 1979; Beissinger et al., 1988).
Nesting almost always occurs over water, which deters predation (Sykes, 1987). Nesting substrates include a variety of small trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation, such as willow, bald cypress, pond cypress, melaleuca, sweetbay, swamp bay, pond apple, dahoon holly, wax myrtle, cocoplum, buttonbush, rattlebox, elderberry, Brazilian pepper, sawgrass, cattail, bulrush, and common reed (Sykes et al., 1995).
3.7 Mangrove Rivulus The mangrove rivulus is a small fish (average 2.5 cm) of mangrove swamps that is classified as a species of special concern by the FWC and a species of concern by the USFWS. The mangrove
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 18 - 093-87652 rivulus occurs from southeastern Brazil through the Antilles and Central America to Florida (Taylor, 1999). They are known to be very tolerant of extreme conditions, including exposure to air for up to 30 days (Litwiller et al., 2006), salinities ranging from 0 to 80 ppt (Taylor, 1999), and temperatures ranging from 41 to 100°F (NMFS, 2009). The mangrove rivulus is the only vertebrate with a self- fertilizing hermaphroditic reproductive strategy, in which both eggs and sperm are produced by one parent and offspring are genetically identical to the parent.
Mangrove rivulus have been collected within microhabitats of mangrove swamps, including crab burrows, stagnant pools, intermittently dry sloughs or ditches, and fossorial niches inside or under logs, debris, leaf litter, etc. (NMFS, 2009). On the east coast of Florida, its preferred micro-habitat is the land crab burrow (Cardisoma sp.), while in south Florida and on the west coast, the preferred micro-habitats are stagnant pools and old mosquito ditches within mangrove forests (NMFS, 2009). The primary threat is habitat destruction, with the distribution of this species being closely tied to the presence of mangroves (Taylor, 1999; Taylor et al., 2008).
The status of the mangrove rivulus in Florida is difficult to determine due to cryptic habits that make this species invulnerable to most standard fish-collecting gear (Taylor et al., 2008). Between 1928 and 1999, an estimated 2,188 specimens were collected in Florida (Taylor, 1999). However, recent studies employing new types of sampling gear have collected large numbers over small geographic areas. For example, McIvor and Silverman (2010) collected 450 specimens with modified bottomless lift nets from riverine mangroves in southwest Florida from 2001 to 2007. The next most abundant fish taxon collected in this study was represented by only 37 individuals. Similarly, recent studies have indicated that this species is much more common in the Tampa Bay area than previously thought (McIvor, unpublished data). According to the Biological Status Review for the Mangrove Rivulus (FWC, 2011b), FWC staff recommends the mangrove rivulus be removed from the state species of special concern list.
3.8 Everglades Mink The Everglades mink is classified as threatened by the FWC but is not listed federally by the USFWS. No critical habitat has been designated for this species. It is the southernmost subspecies of the American mink (Mustela vison). Mink occur in at least three disjunct, peripheral populations in Florida: the saltmarshes of the gulf coast of northern Florida probably from Pasco County to Franklin County; the saltmarshes of the Atlantic coast from southern St. Johns County, Florida northwards into Georgia and South Carolina; and southern Florida freshwater marshes in the Everglades, Big Cypress
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 19 - 093-87652
Swamp, and Lake Okeechobee (Humphrey and Setzer, 1989; Smith, 1980). The Everglades mink exists as a disjunct population of the American mink that inhabits southern Florida and in particular the shallow freshwater marshes of the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp region (Humphrey, 1992; Humphrey and Setzer, 1989). Most sightings and specimens have come from either Collier County or Dade County (Smith, 1980), but the Everglades mink presumably inhabits northern and eastern
Monroe County as well (Humphrey, 1992).
Mink typically live and forage along streams, marshes, and other wetlands, but they can live in drier habitats if food is plentiful (FWC, 2011c). Examination of digestive tracts from mink carcasses showed that mink fed on crayfish, snakes, fish, mammals, and birds (Smith, 1980). Habitat use may be seasonal and dependent on water levels in the marshes (Humphrey and Zinn, 1982), with spikerush marshes, salt marshes, and freshwater habitats used during the wet season while swamp forests are used during the dry season. Mating potentially occurs in autumn when water levels are high; as water levels recede, the Everglades mink may relocate to more permanent ponds and concentrated food sources, particularly in March and April when young are not yet weaned (Humphrey, 1992; Humphrey and Zinn, 1982).
3.9 Florida Panther The Florida panther is classified as endangered by both the FWC and the USFWS. Although the adult population has increased from an estimated 12-20 in the early 1970s (USFWS, 2008) to an estimated 100-160 adults in 2010 (FWC, 2010), the panther continues to face numerous threats due to an increasing human population and associated development in panther habitat. No critical habitat has been designated for the Florida panther; however the USFWS has designated a panther consultation area which delineates a zone within which a proposed project has the potential to affect the Florida panther (USFWS, 2000). The Florida panther is the last subspecies of Puma still surviving in the eastern United States (USFWS, 2008). It is a large, long-tailed cat with a great deal of color variation, including pale brown or rusty upper parts, dull white or buffy under parts, and the tail tip, back of ears, and sides of nose are dark brown or blackish (USFWS, 2011). Mature male panthers examined in the wild in Florida since 1978 have weighed from 102 to 154 pounds (Roelke, 1990, Roelke and Glass, 1992) and measured nearly 7 feet from nose to tip of tail. Females were considerably smaller, with a weight range of 50 to 108 pounds (Roelke, 1990) and measuring about 6 feet (USFWS, 2008). Their primary prey is medium and large mammals including feral hogs, deer, raccoons, and armadillos.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 20 - 093-87652
Panthers historically occurred throughout the southeastern United States, but are currently restricted to less than 5% of their historic range in one breeding population located in south Florida (USFWS, 2008). The panther presently occupies one of the least developed areas in the eastern United States; a contiguous system of large private ranches and public conservation lands in Broward, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach counties (USFWS, 1999). The core of the breeding population is centered in Collier, Hendry and Miami-Dade counties associated with the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades. Radio-collared panthers have also been documented in DeSoto, Highlands, Osceola, and Polk counties. Furthermore, there are still large areas of privately owned land in Charlotte County where uncollared individuals may reside (Maehr, 1992b). Most panther dispersal occurs south of the Caloosahatchee River with only four radio-collared panthers crossing the river and continuing north since 1981 (Land and Taylor, 1998; Land et al,. 1999; Shindle et al., 2000, Maehr et al., 2002; Belden and McBride, 2006).
Panthers require large areas of land, with numerous factors influencing home range size including habitat quality, prey density, and landscape configuration (Belden, 1988, Comiskey et al., 2002). The home range sizes of 26 radio-collared panthers monitored between 1985 and 1990 averaged 200 mi2 (519 km2) for resident adult males and 175 mi2 (93 km2) for resident females, while transient males had a home range of 240 mi2 (623 km2) (Maehr et al., 1991). In a study of 50 adult panthers, Comiskey et al. (2002) found resident males had a mean home range of 251 m2 (650 km2) and females had a mean home range of 153 mi2 (396 km2). Forested cover types, particularly cypress swamp, pinelands, hardwood swamp, and upland hardwood forests are the habitat types most selected by panthers (Belden, 1986; Belden et al., 1988; Maehr, 1990; Maehr et al., 1991; Maehr. 1992; Smith and Bass, 1994; Kerkhoff et al., 2000; Comiskey et al., 2002; Cox et al., 2006). Dense and tall stands of saw palmetto are also an important habitat component, primarily used for resting and denning (Maehr, 1990).
3.10 Other Listed Bird Species Six species of wading birds classified by the FWC as species of special concern but not listed by the USFWS have been observed or are likely to occur within the proposed Site or associated facilities. These include the little blue heron, reddish egret, white ibis, snowy egret, roseate spoonbill, and tricolored heron. In addition, the white-crowned pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala), classified as threatened by the FWC (2003a) but unlisted by the USFWS, has also been observed on the Site. No critical habitat for these birds has been designated. General descriptions are provided below:
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 21 - 093-87652
The little blue heron is a medium-sized heron, with a purplish to maroon-brown head and neck, small white patch on throat and upper neck, and a slate-blue body. The little blue heron feeds in shallow freshwater, brackish, and saltwater habitats. The largest nesting colonies of little blue herons occur in coastal areas, but they prefer to forage in freshwater lakes, marshes, swamps, and streams. Little blue herons nest in a variety of woody vegetation types, including cypress, willow, maple, black mangrove, and cabbage palm. They usually breed in mixed-species colonies in flooded vegetation or on islands.
The reddish egret is a coastal wading bird with a gray body and reddish plumes on head, neck, and upper breast. An estimated two-thirds of the Florida population occurs in Florida Bay and the Lower Keys (FNAI, 2001). During the breeding season the bill is pink or flesh-colored at base and black at end, while late in nesting season and in non-breeding adults, pink in bill fades and bill becomes dusky overall (FNAI, 2001). In Florida, they typically nest on coastal mangrove islands or in Brazilian pepper on manmade dredge spoil islands near suitable foraging habitat. Nesting in Florida Bay and Keys occurs primarily between November and March, while nesting begins in late February through April along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts (FNAI, 2001). Suitable foraging habitat consists of shallow water of variable salinity occurring within marine tidal flats, shorelines with little vegetation, or salt evaporation pools and lagoons often located inside mangrove keys or just inside the shoreline (FNAI, 2001).
The white ibis is an all white wading bird with black wingtips and a downward curving bill that occurs throughout Florida in a wide variety of habitats, including freshwater and brackish marshes, salt flats and salt marsh meadows, many types of forested wetlands, wet prairies, swales, seasonally inundated fields, and man-made ditches. White ibis typically nest in Florida from March to August. Nesting occurs in trees, shrubs, cactus, and grass clumps, from ground level to a height of approximately 50 feet. Eggs incubate for a period of approximately 22 days and young begin leaving the nest around 9 to 16 days of age, but complete independence from the parents does not occur until 40 to 50 days of age (FWC, 2003).
The snowy egret is a medium sized, all-white wading bird. Adults have black legs with bright yellow feet. Snowy egrets occur in Florida in all seasons, but are generally less common in winter. Snowy egrets nest both inland and in coastal wetlands, with nests placed in many types of woody shrubs, especially mangroves and willows. Almost all nesting is over shallow waters or on islands that are separated from shoreline by extensive open water. Snowy egrets feed in a variety of permanently and
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 22 - 093-87652 seasonally flooded wetlands, streams, lakes, and swamps, and in manmade impoundments and ditches. A wide variety of wetland types must be available within 7 miles to support breeding colonies (FNAI, 2001). Nesting may begin as early as January in southern Florida. Egg laying occurs primarily between late March and June, but may continue into August (Ogden, 1996a).
The roseate spoonbill is a bright pink wading bird with a white neck and flat, spoon-like bill found on the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, and southern Florida; also in the American tropics. Preferred habitats include mangroves, saltwater lagoons, and large, shallow lakes. They nest locally from Tampa Bay on the Gulf coast and Brevard County on the Atlantic coast, south to northern Florida Bay, and at some interior sites. The majority of the breeding population occurs in Florida Bay (FNAI, 2001). Nesting occurs primarily November through March in Florida Bay and March through July in peninsular Florida, within mixed-species colonies on coastal mangrove islands, Brazilian pepper on man-made dredge spoil islands near suitable foraging habitat, and occasionally in willow heads at freshwater sites (FNAI, 2001). Roseate spoonbills typically forage in shallow water of variable salinity, including marine tidal flats and ponds, coastal marshes, mangrove-dominated inlets and pools, and freshwater sloughs and marshes.
The tricolored heron is a medium sized heron with dark slate coloration on the head, neck, and body that contrasts with the white rump, belly, and undertail. Most tricolor nesting colonies occur on mangrove islands or in willow thickets in fresh water, but nesting sites include other woody thickets on islands or over standing water. Egg laying can begin as early as February in south Florida and continue into August (Ogden, 1996b). Tricolored herons prefer coastal environments, but will feed in a variety of permanently and seasonally flooded wetlands, mangrove swamps, tidal creeks, ditches, and edges of ponds and lakes. They are permanent residents and found throughout Florida in all seasons, except they are rare in winter in the western Panhandle and also somewhat less common inland during winter (FNAI, 2001).
The white-crowned pigeon is a dark gray dove with a contrasting white crown that forages in tropical hardwood hammocks on poisonwood and other native fruit-bearing trees in the Florida Keys and very southern mainland. They nest between early May through early September from southern Biscayne Bay south through Florida Bay to the Marquesas Keys on mangrove islands and islets free from raccoons and human disturbance (FNAI, 2001). Their breeding range includes the Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and Lesser Antilles south to Antigua. Continued destruction of tropical hammocks, especially in the Keys, poses one of the greatest threats to the white-crowned pigeon’s food supply.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 23 - 093-87652
3.11 Listed Plant Species Listed plants are those plants classified as threatened or endangered and regulated by the USFWS or Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), Division of Plant Industry. A review of species of threatened or endangered plants in Miami-Dade County and probability of occurrence within the Site and associated facilities based on known occurrences and presence of suitable habitat and soils resulted in a list of 174 taxa (Table 1).
TABLE 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT TAXA AND PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Probability State Federal of Scientific Name English Name Status Status Occurrence Acoelorraphe wrightii Paurotis Palm LT N L
Acrostichum aureum Golden Leather Fern LT N L
Actinostachys pennula Ray Fern LE N L
Adiantum melanoleucum Fragrant Maidenhair Fern LE N L
Adiantum tenerum Brittle Maidenhair Fern LE N L-M
Aeschynomene pratensis Meadow Jointvetch LE N H-P
Aletris bracteata Bracted Colic-root LE N L
Alvaradoa amorphoides Everglades Leaf Lace LE N L
Amorpha herbacea var. crenulata Crenulate Lead-plant LE LE L-M
Anemia wrightii Wright’s Pineland Fern LE N L
Angadenia berteroi Pineland Golden Trumpet LE N H-P
Argythamnia blodgettii Blodgett’s Wild-mercury LE C L
Asplenium dentatum American Toothed Spleenwort LE N L
Asplenium serratum American Bird’s Nest Fern LE N L
Asplenium verecundum Modest Spleenwort LE N L
Basiphyllaea corallicola Rockland Orchid LE N L
Beloglottis costaricensis Costa Rican Ladies’-tresses LE N L
Bletia purpurea Pinepink LT N H-P
Bourreria cassinifolia Smooth Strongbark LE N L
Bourreria succulent Bahama Strongbark LE N L
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 24 - 093-87652
TABLE 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT TAXA AND PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Probability State Federal of Scientific Name English Name Status Status Occurrence Brickellia mosieri Florida brickell-bush LE C H-P
Byrsonima lucida Locustberry LT N H-P
Calyptranthes pallens Spicewood LT N L
Calyptranthes zuzygium Myrtle-of-the-river LE N L
Catopsis berteroniana Powdery Catopsis LE N L
Catopsis floribunda Many-flowered Catopsis LE N L
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. adhaerens Hairy Deltoid Spurge LE LE L
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea Deltoid Spurge LE LE L
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum Pinelands Spurge LE C H-P
Chamaesyce garberi Garber’s Spurge LE LT L
Chamaesyce pergamena Southern Florida Sandmat LT N L
Chamaesyce porteriana Porter’s Broad-leaved Spurge LE N L-M
Chaptalia albicans Sunbonnets LT N H-P
Chrysophyllum oliviforme Satinleaf LT N L
Coccothrinax argentata Silver Palm LT N H-P
Colubrina cubensis var. floridana Cuban Snake-bark LE N L-M
Colubrina elliptica Soldierwood LE N L
Crossopetalum ilicifolium Christmasberry LT N H-P
Crossopetalum rhacoma Maidenberry LT N L
Croton humilis Pepperbush LE N L
Ctenitis sloanei Florida Tree Fern LE N L
Ctenitis submarginalis Brown-hair Comb-fern LE N L
Cynanchum blodgettii Blodgett's Swallowwort LT N H-P
Cyperus filiformis Wiry Flatsedge LE N L
Cyrtopodium punctatum Cowhorn Orchid LE N L
Dalbergia brownie Browne’s Indian Rosewood LE N L
Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana Florida Prairie Clover LE C L
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 25 - 093-87652
TABLE 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT TAXA AND PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Probability State Federal of Scientific Name English Name Status Status Occurrence Digitaria filiformis var. dolichophylla Caribbean Crabgrass LT N L-M
Digitaria pauciflora Few-flowered Fingergrass LE C L-M
Drypetes lateriflora Guiana Plum LT N L
Eltroplectris calcarata Spurred Neottia LE N L-M
Epidendrum amphistomum Dingy Flowered Star Orchid LE N L
Epidendrum floridensis Florida Star Orchid LE N L
Epidendrum nocturnum Night-scented Orchid LE N L
Epidendrum rigidum Stiff Flowered Star Orchid LE N L
Erithalis fruticosa Black Torch LT N L
Ernodea cokeri Coker’s Beach Creeper LE N L-M
Eugenia confuse Tropical Ironwood LE N L
Eugenia rhombea Red Stopper LE N L
Evolvulus convolvuloides Bindweed Dwarf Morning-glory LE N L
Exostema caribaeum Princewood LE N L
Galactia smallii Small’s Milk Pea LE LE L
Galeandra bicarinata Two-keeled Helmet Orchid LE N L
Glandularia maritima Coastal Vervain LE N L
Gossypium hirsutum Wild Cotton LE N L
Govenia floridana Florida Govenia LE N L
Guzmania monostachia Fakahatchee Guzmania LE N L
Habenaria nivea Snowy Platanthera LT N L
Halophila johnsonii Johnson’s Seagrass N LT L
Harrisia simpsonii Simpson’s Prickly Apple LE N L
Hibiscus poeppigiii Poeppig's Rosemallow LE L
Hippomane mancinella Manchineel LE N L
Hypelate trifoliate White Ironwood LE N L
Ilex krugiana Krug's Holly LT N H-P
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 26 - 093-87652
TABLE 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT TAXA AND PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Probability State Federal of Scientific Name English Name Status Status Occurrence Ionopsis utricularioides Delicate Violet Orchid LE N L
Ipomoea microdactyla Wild Potato Morning Glory LE N L-M
Ipomoea tenuissima Rockland Morning Glory LE N H-P
Jacquemontia curtisii Pineland Clustervine LT N H-P
Jacquemontia pentanthos Skyblue Clustervine LE N L
Jacquinia keyensis Joewood LT N L
Koanophyllon villosum Villose Fennel LE N H-P
Lantana canescens Small-headed Lantana LE N L
Lantana depressa var. depressa Florida Lantana LE N H-P
Lantana depressa var. floridana Atlantic Coast Florida Lantana LE N L
Leiphaimos parasitica Ghost Plant LE N L
Licaria triandra Gulf Licaria LE C L-M
Linum arenicola Sand Flax LE C M-H
Linum carteri var. carteri Carter’s Small-flowered Flax LE C L-M
Linum carteri var. smallii Carter’s Large-flowered Flax LE N M
Lomariopsis kunzeana Holly Vine Fern LE N L
Manilkara jaimiqui ssp. emarginata Wild Dilly LT N L
Maytenus phyllanthoides Florida Mayten LT N L
Melanthera parviflora Small-leaved Melanthera LT N H-P
Mesadenus lucayana Florida Keys Ladies’-tresses LE N L
Microgramma heterophylla Climbing Vine Fern LE N L
Myrcianthes fragrans Simpson Stopper LT N L
Nephrolepis biserrata Giant Sword Fern LT N L
Ocimum campechianum Wild Basil LE N L-M
Odontosoria clavata Wedgelet Fern LE N L-M
Oncidium floridanum Florida Dancinglady Orchid LE N L
Oncidium undulatum Muleear Orchid LE N L
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 27 - 093-87652
TABLE 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT TAXA AND PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Probability State Federal of Scientific Name English Name Status Status Occurrence Ophioglossum palmatum Hand Fern LE N L
Opuntia stricta Erect Pricklypear LT N L
Paspalidium chapmanii Coral Paspalum LE N M
Passiflora pallens Pineland Passionflower LE N L
Passiflora sexflora Everglades Key Passion-flower LE N L
Pavonia paludicola Mangrove Mallow LE N L
Peperomia humilis Low Peperomia LE N L
Peperomia obtusifolia Blunt-leaved Peperomia LE N L
Phyla stoechadifolia Southern Frog-fruit LE N H-P
Picramnia pentandra Bitter Bush LE N L
Pithecellobium keyense Black Bead LT N L
Poinsettia pinetorum Pineland Spurge LE N H-P
Polygala smallii Tiny Polygala LE LE L
Polystachya concreta Greater Yellowspice Orchid LE N L
Ponthieva brittoniae Britton’s Shadow-witch LE N L
Prosthechea boothiana var. erythroniodies Dollar Orchid LE N L
Prosthechea boothiana var. triandra Clamshell Orchid LE N L
Prunus myrtifolia West Indian Cherry LT N L
Psidium longipes Mangrove Berry LT N L
Psychotria ligustrifolia Bahama Wild Coffee LE N L
Pteris bahamensis Bahama Ladder Brake LT N H-P
Pteroglossaspis ecristata Giant Orchid LT N L
Reynosia septentrionalis Darlingplum LT N L
Rhipsalis baccifera Mistletoe Cactus LE N L
Rhynchosia parviflora Small-leaf Snoutbean LT N H-P
Roystonea elata Florida Royal Palm LE N L
Sachsia polycephala Bahama Sachsia LT N H-P
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 28 - 093-87652
TABLE 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT TAXA AND PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Probability State Federal of Scientific Name English Name Status Status Occurrence Sacoila lanceolata var. paludicola Fahkahatchee Ladies’-tresses LT N L
Savia bahamensis Bahama maidenbush LE N L
Schaefferia frutescens Florida Boxwood LE N L
Scleria lithosperma Florida Keys Nutrush LE N L
Scutellaria havanensis Havana Skullcap LE N L-M
Selaginella eatonii Eaton’s Spikemoss LE N L
Senna mexicana var. chapmanii Bahama Senna LT N L
Smilax havanensis Everglades Greenbrier LT N
Solanum donianum Mullien Nightshade LT N H-P
Everglades Keys False Button- Spermacoce terminalis weed LT N H-P
Spiranthes laciniata Lacelip Ladies’-tresses LT N L
Spiranthes longilabris Longlip Ladies’-tresses LT N L
Spiranthes torta Southern Ladies’-tresses LE N M
Stylosanthes calcicola Pineland Pencil Flower LE N H-P
Swietenia mahagoni West Indies Mahogany LT N L
Tectaria fimbriata Least Halberd Fern LE N L
Tectaria heracleifolia Broad Halberd Fern LT N L
Tephrosia angustissima var. angustissima Devil’s Shoestring LE N L
Tephrosia angustissima var. corallicola Rockland Hoary-pea LE N L
Tephrosia angustissima var. curtisii Coastal Hoary-pea LE N L
Tetrazygia bicolor Florida Clover Ash LT N H-P
Thelypteris augescens Abrupt-tip Maiden Fern LT N H-P
Thelypteris patens Grid-scale Maiden Fern LE N L
Thelypteris reptans Creeping Maiden Fern LE N L
Thelypteris reticulate Lattice-vein Fern LE N L
Thelypteris sclerophylla Stiff-leaved Maiden Fern LE N L
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 29 - 093-87652
TABLE 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT TAXA AND PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Probability State Federal of Scientific Name English Name Status Status Occurrence Thelypteris serrata Toothed Maiden Fern LE N L
Thrinax morrisii Brittle Thatch Palm LE N L
Thrinax radiate Florida Thatch Palm LE N L
Tillandsia balbisiana Twisted Wild-Pine LT N M
Tillandsia fasciculata var. densispica Cardinal Airplant LE N L
Tillandsia flexuosa Banded Wild-Pine LT N L
Tillandsia utriculata Giant Wild-Pine LE N M
Tillandsia variabilis Leatherleaf Airplant LT N L
Tournefortia hirsutissima Chiggery Grapes LE N L
Tragia saxicola Pineland Noseburn LT N H-P
Trema lamarckianum Lamarck’s Trema LE N H-P
Trichomanes krausii Kraus’ Bristle Fern LE N L
Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum Florida Filmy Fern LE N L
Tripsacum floridanum Florida Gamagrass LT N H-P
Vallesia antillana Tearshrub LE N L
Vanilla barbellata Worm-vine Orchid LE N L
Vanilla inodora Mexican Vanilla LE N L
Vanilla phaeantha Leafy Vanilla LE N L
Zanthoxylem coriaceum Biscayne Pricklash LE N L
Zephyranthes simpsonii Simpson’s Zephyrlily LT N H
Legend: State Status: LE = endangered, LT = threatened. Federal Status: LE = endangered, LT = threatened, C = candidate for listing. Probability of Occurrence: L = low, M = medium, H = high, P = present in corridor.
Sources: USFWS, FDACS.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 30 - 093-87652
4.0 STATUS OF LISTED SPECIES WITHIN PROJECT AREA
The following describes the status of threatened and endangered species within the Site and associated facilities based upon literature reviews, field surveys, agency consultation, Florida Natural Areas Inventory data, presence of suitable habitat, field surveys, data from USFWS and FWC, as well as over three decades of data collected at the Turkey Point Plant.
4.1 American Crocodile Adult crocodiles were first observed at Turkey Point in 1976 and nesting was first documented upon berms within the cooling canals in 1978 (Mazzotti and Brandt, 1994). As a result, FPL developed a crocodile management plan, which focused on the creation and enhancement of habitats for crocodile nesting, as well as monitoring the reproductive success, growth, and survival of hatchlings. FPL’s efforts have resulted in a significant increase in the number of crocodile nests and hatchlings in the cooling canals over nearly three decades, from 1 to 2 per year between 1978 and 1981 (Gaby et al., 1985), to 10 to 15 nests per year in the 1990s (Brandt et al., 1995; Cherkiss, 1999), 28 known nests and 520 hatchlings in 2008, and 24 known nests and 548 hatchlings in 2009. The nesting habitat maintained by FPL within the cooling canals and industrial wastewater facility has been responsible for virtually the entire increase in population of the American crocodile reported in South Florida over the past 25 years (Tucker et al., 2004). The Turkey Point property now supports the second largest breeding aggregation of crocodiles in Florida (Federal Register Volume 72 No. 53, 3/20/2007). The present population at Turkey Point is estimated to total approximately 400 animals.
Although the Site is located within the USFWS-designated critical habitat area for the crocodile, historical monitoring of the crocodile population within the cooling canals indicates occasional observations of basking crocodiles along the perimeter of the Site, but no utilization of the Site for nesting. Crocodiles are not known to habitually utilize the Site for foraging or nesting due to the lack of suitable nesting substrate, altered and highly variable hydrology, and limited food supply.
The features that attract crocodiles to the cooling canal system include the elevated berms that provide a lee side regardless of wind direction, an ample food supply, the shallow water canals bordered by deeper canals that allow movement to and from the area, and the presence of freshwater ponds within a hyper-saline environment. The southwest corner of the cooling canal system is an area where crocodiles have a wide variety of habitats available. Within 75 meters, crocodiles can choose between the hypersaline environment of the cooling canals, the salinity of Biscayne Bay, and
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 31 - 093-87652 the freshwater of the interceptor ditch. These conditions are unique to the cooling canals and are not present within the Site.
The Site is primarily devoid of vegetation and experiences frequent episodic changes in hydroperiod, making it undesirable for crocodile foraging or nesting. Due to the lack of consistent hydroperiod, food sources for crocodiles are relatively scarce within the Site. Crocodile nesting does not take place in this area due to the lack of suitable nesting substrate as well as potential aversion to human disturbance associated with the existing Turkey Point generating facilities.
A summary of wetland impacts within the Site by habitat type and the potential use by crocodiles is presented in the table below: Wetland Existing Area Impact Potential Habitat Acres (%) Acreage Crocodile Use Foraging, Remnant canals 8.4 2.9% 8.4 Conveyance Foraging, Open water 12.0 4.1% 12.0 Conveyance Mangrove heads 12.2 4.2% 12.2 Foraging Dwarf mangroves 16.9 5.8% 16.9 Foraging Mud flats 187.5 64.5% 187.5 Basking Wetland spoils areas 9.1 3.1% 9.1 Basking Upland spoils areas 7.8 2.7% 0 Basking Foraging, Canals 16.7 5.7% 4.1 Conveyance Fill areas/roadways 20.2 6.9% 0 N/A Total 290.7 100% 250.2
The originally proposed location for the FPL reclaimed water treatment facility contains sawgrass marsh and scattered dwarf mangrove habitat that is not located within the federally-designated critical habitat for the crocodile and does not provide suitable crocodile nesting habitat. The FPL reclaimed water treatment facility potential alternative location was historically dredged in association with the moat and associated berms, and currently consists of upland spoil piles dominated by Australian pine, excavated open water canals, an upland access pathway, sawgrass marsh, dwarf mangroves, and exotic wetland hardwoods dominated by Australian pine. No crocodile nesting has been observed within this area, as the upland spoil piles are densely vegetated with exotic vegetation upon rocky substrate that does not provide suitable nesting conditions. Although the area is not utilized for
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 32 - 093-87652 nesting, sub-adult crocodiles have been observed within portions of the open water canals. A total of approximately 3 acres of excavated canals and ditches would be impacted; however, this area is not located within federally-designated critical habitat for the crocodile.
Spoil materials removed from the Units 6 & 7 Site will be placed upon select berms within the cooling canal system (Figure 6), the berms along the southern boundary and berms adjacent to the Grand Canal. Areas designated for placement of spoil materials excavated from the Units 6&7 Site were specifically selected due to their lack of suitable nesting substrate for the American crocodile and lack of recorded crocodile nesting in these areas. The proposed spoil stockpiling area along the southern boundary of the cooling canal system has been used for spoil disposal since the 1970s and is an area with high banks located between the cooling canal system and the C-107 Canal to the south.
Facilities associated with the Project, including the reclaimed water pipelines, nuclear administration building, training building and parking area, and transmission lines, are located north of the USFWS critical crocodile habitat boundary and do not provide basking, nesting, or foraging habitat comparable to the conditions within the industrial wastewater facility. Similarly, the location of the radial collector wells and delivery pipelines upon previously-filled upland areas of the Turkey Point peninsula does not provide significant nesting, basking, or foraging habitat for the crocodile. The western transmission corridor extends outside of the critical habitat boundary from the Units 6 & 7 Site across the northern portion of the cooling canal system. Structures located upon canal berms and associated access bridges from SW 359th Street will be designed to avoid crocodile nesting areas.
4.2 Eastern Indigo Snake Although no indigo snakes have been observed within the Site, they are known to exist on the Turkey Point plant property south of the cooling canal system, outside of the Project Area. FPL has recorded indigo snake sightings within the EMB, typically on tree islands, spoil berms, or roads, and has created an upland indigo snake habitat area adjacent to the crocodile sanctuary in 2008.
According to the FNAI database, two occurrences of the eastern indigo snake were documented in 1981 within upland areas adjacent to SW 344th Street/Palm Drive, north of the Project Area. Indigo snakes have not been identified upon SW 359th Street or within areas of freshwater marsh located adjacent to the proposed temporary construction access roadways on SW 359th Street. The portion of SW 359th Street west of the L-31E does not traverse upland areas that are typically preferred by
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 33 - 093-87652 eastern indigo snakes, although they may utilize tropical hardwood hammocks and mangrove forests in the vicinity.
Based on the presence of suitable habitat, the indigo snake has a high likelihood of occurrence in the West Preferred Corridor, and a moderate likelihood of occurrence within the East Preferred Corridor. Although not considered high quality habitat due to dominance by the exotic species Australian pine, indigo snakes may also occur upon upland spoil areas within the potential alternative location for the FPL reclaimed water treatment facility.
4.3 Wood Stork Wood storks are known to occasionally forage within the western portions of the Units 6 & 7 Site, in the open water area associated with Discharge Canal 1, and are likely to forage in areas of suitable habitat within areas designated for construction of associated facilities. No wood stork nesting colonies are located within the vicinity of the Site or associated facilities, with the exception of the West Preferred Corridor.
A total of nine wood stork colony CFAs encompass portions of the transmission corridors, as identified on Figure 12: Colony #620018 Madeira, Lower Taylor Slough, Grossman Ridge West, Colony #620131, Tamiami West, Tamiami East 2, Tamiami East 1, 3B-Mud East, and an un-named colony.
The West Preferred Corridor is located within the USFWS (1990) recommended maximum secondary protection zone (2,500 feet) of the 3B-Mud East colony, located north of U.S. Highway 41 (Tamiami Trail), and the Tamiami East 2 colony located south of U.S. 41 (Figure 13). The site-specific primary and secondary zones have not yet been established for the wood stork colonies in the general area of the West Preferred Corridor. Four colonies occur within three miles of the West Preferred Corridor, the Tamiami East 1, Tamiami East 2, Tamiami West, and 3B-Mud East colonies. There are no other known wading bird colonies within five miles of the proposed transmission corridors.
4.4 Least Tern Least terns are known to use areas of gravel substrate at the Turkey Point Plant for nesting, and utilize areas within the Site as foraging habitat. The majority of the Site consists of mud flat wetlands within the cooling canal system, which do not provide suitable nesting habitat for least terns. Upland areas of the Site consist of existing roadways and previously filled areas that are significantly disturbed as
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 34 - 093-87652 they are infrastructure that support the existing Turkey Point Plant. No nesting least terns have been observed in these areas. Least terns commonly use artificial nesting sites, including dredge spoil pile islands or other dredged material deposits, in addition to gravel rooftops, construction sites, and mining lands (FNAI, 2001). According to the FNAI database, an occurrence of least tern nesting within the Turkey Point cooling canal system to the south of the Site was documented in 1992-1993, located upon an upland berm between cooling canals outside of the Project Area. The industrial wastewater system contains over 100 miles of canals and associated berms, which provide potential habitat for least terns.
4.5 Florida Manatee The Florida manatee is known to occur in Biscayne Bay, but does not occur within the Site or the industrial wastewater facility, as the closed-loop cooling canals do not connect to the Bay. Turkey Point Units 1 through 4 utilize the industrial wastewater facility for cooling, and do not contribute any thermal discharge into Biscayne Bay that could attract manatees during winter months. Construction activity within the existing Turkey Point barge turning basin is limited to a 0.1-acre area of dredging in association with the construction of the equipment barge unloading area. This area lacks the attributes of areas designated as essential manatee habitat as described in the Dade County Manatee Protection Plan (MDC, 1996) such as seagrass beds, warm and freshwater water sources, aggregation areas, travel corridors, aquatic preserves, refuges, and sanctuaries that are frequently used by manatees for feeding, resting, mating, nursing, cold shelter, and travel.
Manatees occasionally occur in some of the SFWMD canals connecting to Biscayne Bay north of the Turkey Point plant, some of which are contained within the reclaimed water pipeline corridor and East Preferred Corridor.
4.6 Snail Kite No snail kites have been observed within the Site or associated facilities, with the exception of the West Preferred Corridor, where they have been observed in freshwater marsh wetlands in and around the ENP. The Site and associated facilities are not located within the federally-designated critical habitat for the snail kite.
4.7 Mangrove Rivulus According to the FNAI database, multiple occurrences of mangrove rivulus have been documented within the general vicinity of the Site and associated facilities from the 1960s and 1970s. The
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 35 - 093-87652 mangrove rivulus was reported within the BNP and in ditches near Black Creek Canal in 1961; approximately 1 mile north of Palmetto Lake in 1966; and approximately 2 miles north of Homestead Air Force Base in 1977.
4.8 Everglades Mink No Everglades mink have been observed within the vicinity of the Site or associated facilities, with the exception of the West Preferred Corridor. According to the FNAI database, an occurrence of Everglades mink was documented in the vicinity of the West Preferred Corridor and within an area approximately ½ mile to the west along State Route 41, just south of Everglades and Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area.
4.9 Florida Panther The USFWS Florida Panther Consultation Area (Figure 14) includes the western portion of the proposed temporary construction access roadway improvement corridor and the West Preferred Corridor. No panthers have been observed in this area since 1988.
The FWC panther radio-telemetry database from February 1981 through June 2009 (N=87,850 records) contains 275 records of panther occurrence within 5 miles of the proposed temporary construction access roadway improvements. These records are all from FP21, a female panther that was originally captured for monitoring by ENP researchers in March 1987 (Figure 15). FP21 was injured in a collision with a motor vehicle on July 23, 1988. The injury occurred approximately 1 mile east of U.S. Highway 1 (US 1) on SW 344th Street approximately 2.7 miles west of the proposed roadway improvements. Panther FP21 was removed from the wild for medical reasons and was relocated to White Oak Plantation in Nassau County, Florida. Panther FP21 remained in captivity until she was euthanized in December 1997. The FWC panther mortality database through October 10, 2009, contains one record of panther mortality within 5 miles of the proposed temporary construction access roadway improvements. An uncollared three-year old female died in a collision with a motor vehicle on US 1 approximately 0.5 mile south of the intersection with Card Sound Road on May 9, 2007. The FWC panther den database contains no records of panther dens within 5 miles of the proposed roadway improvements. This information demonstrates that radio-collared Florida panthers have not been recorded in the vicinity of the proposed construction access roadway improvements since 1988, but at least one uncollared female panther has occurred in the vicinity as recently as May 2007 based on roadkill mortality records.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 36 - 093-87652
The FWC panther radio-telemetry database through June 2009 (N=87,850 records) contains 1,770 telemetry records representing the occurrence of 12 Florida panthers and one Texas female puma (Puma concolor stanleyana) within 5 miles of the West Preferred Transmission Corridor. These records are summarized as follows: • 47 records for female FP14 between December 18, 1986, and July 24, 1990; • 463 records for male FP16 between January 26, 1987, and January 7, 2000; • 375 records for female FP21 between April 5, 1987, and July 23, 1988; • 4 records for female FP22 between January 29, 1988, and January 12, 1989; • 59 records for female FP23 between November 18, 1989, and February 27, 1990; • 97 records for female FP27 between May 14, 1998, and July 26, 1989; • 125 records for male FP42 between March 24, 1990, and April 29, 1991; • 334 records for female FP61 between November 10, 1997, and June 4, 2003; • 116 records for male FP85 between March 6, 2000, and February 17, 2004; • 1 record for female FP94 on March 7, 2001; • 117 records for female FP95 between March 2, 2001, and January 9, 2008; • 24 records for male FP125 between July 27, 2004, and September 28, 2004; and • 8 records for Texas female TX108 between May 1, 1996, and March 2, 2001.
According to FWC data, panther FP16 died of unknown causes in 2000 near the northeastern boundary of the ENP. Panthers FP42 and FP85 were reported deceased in 1995 and 2000, respectively. The FWC panther mortality database through October 10, 2009, contains five records of mortality within 5 miles of the West Preferred Corridor. Two vehicle-related mortalities occurred in 2007, one vehicle-related morality occurred in 2008, and one record of panther mortality due to unknown causes occurred in 1989 and in 2000. The FWC database of panther dens contains one record of a panther den within 5 miles of the West Preferred Corridor, dated September 27, 2002.
4.10 Other Listed Bird Species Six species of wading birds classified by the FWC as species of special concern have been observed within the Site and/or areas designated for construction of associated facilities: the little blue heron, reddish egret, white ibis, snowy egret, roseate spoonbill, and tricolored heron. The white-crowned pigeon has also been observed on the Site. While these listed birds utilize the Project Area for foraging, no nesting has been observed within the proposed Site or associated facilities.
4.11 Listed Plant Species Botanical surveys were conducted within the Site and associated linear facilities in September 2008, February 2009, and April 2009. A total of 33 threatened or endangered plant taxa were observed (Table 2), including 11 state endangered species and 22 state threatened species.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 37 - 093-87652
Canal and roadway construction creates poor or marginal habitats within some remaining natural habitats, such as mangrove swamp, pine rockland, and Everglades marsh. Excavated and disturbed soils in the form of spoil mounds and dirt roads cover parts of sensitive habitats, but in some areas provide new habitat for plant species to recruit. In many instances, exotic and nuisance plant species are abundant in disturbed soils, but some rare, threatened or endangered taxa occur, successfully colonizing those areas. Many of these listed plant species were observed in existing FPL transmission line rights-of-way and areas such as side-slopes of transmission structure pads and pine rockland soils under routine vegetation management (e.g., mowing) may support threatened and endangered plant taxa.
Table 2. List of Threatened or Endangered Plant Taxa Observed in Project Area
State Federal Scientific Name Common Name Status Status
Acrostichum aureum Golden Leather Fern LT N Angadenia berteroi Pineland Golden Trumpet LT N Bletia purpurea Pine Pink LT N Brickellia mosieri Florida rickell-bush LE C Byrsonima lucida Locustberry LT N Chamaesyce deltoidea Pinelands Spurge LE C ssp. pinetorum Chaptalia albicans Sunbonnets LT N Coccothrinax argentata Silver Palm LT N Crossopetalum ilicifolium Christmasberry LT N Cynanchum blodgettii Blodgett's Swallowwort LT N Ilex krugiana Krug's Holly LT N Ipomoea tenuissima Rockland Morning Glory LE N Jacquemontia curtisii Pineland Clustervine LT N Jacquemontia pentanthos Skyblue Clustervine LE N Koanophyllon villosum Shrub Eupatorium LE N Lantana depressa var. Florida Lantana LE N depressa Leiphaimos parasitica Ghost Plant LE N
Linum arenicola Sand Flax LE C Linum carteri var. smallii Carter’s Large-flowered Flax LE N
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 38 - 093-87652
Table 2. List of Threatened or Endangered Plant Taxa Observed in Project Area
State Federal Scientific Name Common Name Status Status
Melanthera parvifolia Small-leaved Melanthera LT N Phyla stoechadifolia Southern Frog-fruit LE N Poinsettia pinetorum Pineland Spurge LE N Pteris bahamensis Bahama Ladder Brake LT N Rhynchosia parvifolia Small-leaf Snoutbean LT N Sachsia polycephala Bahama Sachsia LT N Senna mexicana v LT N chapmanii Bahama Senna Solanum donianum Mullein Nightshade LT N Spermacoce terminalis Everglades Keys False Button-weed LT N Tetrazygia bicolor Florida Clover Ash LT N Thelypteris augescens Abrupt-tip Maiden Fern LT N Tillandsia balbisiana Twisted Wild-Pine LT N Tillandsia fasciculata var. Cardinal Airplant LE N densispica Tillandsia flexuosa Banded Wild-Pine LT N Tillandsia utriculata Giant Wild-Pine LE N Tragia saxicola Pineland Noseburn LT N Trema lamarckianum West Indian Trema LE N Tripsacum floridanum Florida Gamagrass LT N C = Candidate species LE = State Endangered LT = State Threatened
5.0 PRE-CLEARING SURVEYS Before land clearing and construction activities occur, FPL will conduct an assessment for listed species, which shall note all habitat, occurrence or evidence of listed species. FPL will coordinate with the FWC and USFWS to obtain and follow the current survey protocols for all listed species that may occur within the Site and associated facilities prior to conducting detailed surveys. Listed species to be included in this survey will include those species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern by the FWC or those listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS, as well as the bald eagle. Wildlife surveys will be conducted in the reproductive or “active” season for each species that falls before the projected clearing activity schedule unless otherwise approved by the FWC or
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 39 - 093-87652
USFWS. For species that are difficult to detect, FPL may make the assumption that the species is present and plan appropriate avoidance/mitigation measures after consultation and approval from the FWC and USFWS.
5.1 American Crocodile American crocodiles may utilize wetlands, open water, and adjacent spoil areas of the Site, nuclear administration building, training building and parking area, FPL reclaimed water treatment facility, and construction access roadways east of the L-31E Canal. Prior to construction, all areas proposed for construction will be surveyed for presence of American crocodiles. Pre-clearing surveys for crocodiles will be completed no more than 48 hours prior to the start of construction in a particular construction zone and will include both daytime and nighttime (eyeshine) surveys. Any crocodiles found in designated construction zones will be removed by authorized FPL personnel under existing permits from the FWC and USFWS. Routine monitoring surveys for crocodiles at the Turkey Point plant will continue as discussed in Section 6.1.
5.2 Eastern Indigo Snake Within the areas of the Site and associated facilities, eastern indigo snakes may utilize disturbed upland spoil and fill areas, pine rockland, or edges of wetlands. eastern indigo snakes utilize underground refugia, which may include burrows of the gopher tortoise, armadillo, cotton rat, or land crabs. In south Florida, indigo snakes are most active from June through November. Surveys will be conducted for eastern indigo snakes consistent with the requirements of the USFWS, FWC, and approved conditions of certification.
5.3 Wood Stork In order to identify the baseline conditions which may indicate the potential for impacts to wood storks and other wading birds, and to help quantify potential mitigation for such impacts, FPL will perform pre-construction surveys and studies along the west transmission right-of-way. The surveys will identify any wood stork/wading bird colonies in addition to any found from agency records in the vicinity of the Project right-of-way consistent with the requirements of the USFWS and approved conditions of certification.
5.4 Least Tern Before land clearing and construction activities occur, FPL will conduct nest surveys for the least tern within the Site and associated facilities in areas of suitable habitat during the nesting season (typically April through September). Substrate at the Site is usually exposed between February and June, and
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 40 - 093-87652 the Site is usually inundated between June and January, depending on unit operations and rainfall. As least tern nesting typically occurs between April and September, the Site only provides potential nesting opportunity during the first months of least tern nesting season. 5.5 Florida Manatee Pre-clearing surveys for manatees are not proposed; rather, manatee observers will be utilized where appropriate in accordance with FWC guidance when in-water work is conducted. This work will be conducted in accordance with the FPL Manatee Protection Plan contained as part of the Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Equipment Barge Delivery Plan (SCA Appendix 10.7.1.2, October 2009). Manatee observers will be FWC-approved for the Project prior to beginning work.
5.6 Snail Kite A survey for snail kites will be conducted consistent with approved conditions of certification within those portions of the west transmission right-of-way that meet the USFWS criteria for suitable habitat for snail kites. Where suitable habitat is present, survey procedures will be used to document the occurrence of snail kites, in accordance with the USFWS South Florida Ecological Services Office Draft Snail Kite Survey Protocol, May 18, 2004.
5.7 Mangrove Rivulus The mangrove rivulus is known to inhabit stagnant pools, mosquito ditches, and land crab burrows in mangrove areas. Pre-clearing surveys are not proposed for the mangrove rivulus, as the species’ cryptic habits make it invulnerable to most standard fish-collecting gear (Taylor et al., 2008).
5.8 Everglades Mink A pre-clearing survey by an experienced biologist will be conducted in areas where suitable potential habitat exists in the west transmission line right-of-way, prior to the initiation of construction activity, to help determine whether any mink are present in the right-of-way and if any den areas may be present. Specific survey protocols will be consistent with the requirements of the approved conditions of certification.
5.9 Florida Panther Portions of the West Preferred Transmission Corridor and temporary construction access roadway improvements corridors are within the USFWS Florida Panther Consultation Area. However, pre- clearing surveys are not proposed in these areas as extensive radio-telemetry tracking data are available for Florida panthers. For species that are difficult to detect, such as the panther, FPL
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 41 - 093-87652 assumes that the species may potentially occur and plans appropriate avoidance measures after consultation with the FWC and USFWS.
5.10 Other Listed Bird Species Several other listed species could potentially occupy habitats within the Site and associated facilities for nesting in forested areas near water. Although none of the listed avian species below have been documented as nesting within boundaries of the proposed Site and associated facilities, pre-clearing nest surveys will be conducted consistent with approved conditions of certification to coincide with known nesting seasons, provided below:
Bird Nesting Habitat Nesting Season White-crowned pigeon Isolated mangrove islands May – September Trees/shrubs on islands Little blue heron* near water – Colonies April - September Mangroves islands – Reddish egret* Colonies February - June Islands near standing White ibis water – Colonies March – August Swamps, mangroves, over Snowy egret water – Colonies January – August Roseate spoonbill* Coastal islands November - February Islands near standing Tricolored heron water – Colonies February – August
*Not known to nest in the vicinity of Turkey Point according to the Florida Breeding Bird Atlas. Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003, January 6. Florida's breeding bird atlas: A collaborative study of Florida's birdlife
5.11 Listed Plant Species The subtropical climate and wide habitat range of south Florida supports a naturally high concentration of plant taxa, although intensive agricultural and development activities have severely reduced suitable habitat for rare plants and introduced many exotic species that displace native plants. The impacts of these activities over the last several decades helps to explain the significant difference in the number of plants potentially occurring based on range maps and historical records and the number of plant taxa that actually occur based upon survey results.
Based on the USFWS and FDACS listed plant information, previous surveys, and presence of suitable habitat, the following list of threatened or endangered plants is proposed for pre-clearing surveys consistent with approved conditions of certification (Table 3).
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 42 - 093-87652
Table 3. Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Likely to Occur in the Project Area Based on Previous Observation or Presence of Suitable Habitat and Optimal Identification Periods
Optimal Scientific Common Federal State Identification Name Name Status Status Observed Habitat Period Acrostichum Golden Leather Fern N LT Yes coastal hammocks, tidal marsh; All year aureum Angadenia Pineland Golden N LE Yes pinelands All year berteroi Trumpet Bletia purpurea Pine Pink N LT Yes pinelands (especially in rocky Apr-May crevices), cypress strand Brickellia Florida Brickell-bush C LE Yes Pine rocklands with open shrub Flowers mosieri layer, exposed limestone, and primarily minimal leaf litter. August–October Byrsonima Locustberry N LE Yes pine All year lucida rocklands, rockland hammock edges; Chamaesyce Pinelands Spurge C LE Yes Pine rocklands with scattered Flowers April– deltoidea spp. shrubs and exposed limestone. November pinetorum Chaptalia Sunbonnets N LT Yes Pinelands Spring albicans Coccothrinax Silver Palm N LT pine Spring or after argentata rocklands, hammocks, coastal Fire strand Crossopetalum Christmasberry N LT pine rockland, rockland All year ilicifolium hammocks, sinkhole rims; Cynanchum Blodgett’s Swallowwort N LT Yes hammocks Spring blodgettii Ilex krugiana Krug’s Holly N LT Yes rockland Feb-July hammocks, pinelands Ipomoea Rocklands Morning LE pine rocklands. Flowers all year tenuissima Glory Jacquemontia Pineland Clustervine N LT Yes Lee side of stable, vegetated Flowers curtisii dunes; disturbed openings in November–May maritime hammock, coastal strand, and coastal scrub, often with sea grape, sand spurs, poisonwood, and prickly pear cactus. Jacquemontia Skyblue Clustervine N LE Yes Pine rockland, edges of rockland Flowers pentathos hammock, disturbed openings November–May in hammocks, coastal rock barren. Koanoplyllon Villose Fennel N LE Yes hammocks, pine woods; All year villosum Lantana Florida Lantana N LE Yes dunes and sandy inland ridges Flowers all year depressa var. depressa Leiphaimos Ghost Plant N LE Yes leaf mold All year parasitica in hammocks Linum arenicola Sand Flax C LE Yes Pine rockland, marl prairie, and Flowers and adjacent disturbed areas. fruits March– November Linum carteri Carter’s Large-Flowered N LE Yes mowed Feb-Apr var. smallii Flax pine rockland, roadside, marl prairies Melanthera Small-leaved Melanthera N LE Yes mowed pine rocklands, marl All year parviflora prairies Phyla Southern Frog-fruit N LE Yes glades, low pineland, swamps All year stoechadifolia
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 43 - 093-87652
Poinsettia Pineland Spurge N LE Yes sandy marshes, pine rocklands All year pinetorum Pteris Bahama Ladder Brake N LT Yes limestone pockets in pine All year bahamensis rockland, edges of hammocks; Rhynchosia Small-Leaf Snoutbean N LT Yes pinelands, along All year parviflora trails, beaches Sachsia Bahama Sachsia N LT Yes pine rocklands; All year polycephala Solanum Mullien Nightshade N LT Yes coastal hammocks and dunes, All year donianum marl prairies, edges or roads in mangroves Spermacoce Everglades Keys False N LT Yes pinelands, coastal areas; All year terminalis Buttonweed Spiranthes torta Southern Ladies’-Tresses N LE No pine rockland, marl prairie, edges Flowers May– of rockland hammock. June Stylosanthes Pineland Pencil Flower N LE No pine rocklands and marl prairies, Flowers and calcicola especially the transition zones fruits all year between these two communities. Tetrazygia Florida Clover Ash N LT Yes rockland May-Aug bicolor hammocks, pinelands, disturbed areas Thelypteris Abrupt-Tip Maiden Fern N LT Yes hammocks, sides of lime sinks, All year augescens abandoned phosphate mines; Tillandsia Twisted Wild-Pine N LT Yes hammocks, cypress swamps, Fall balbisiana pineland, scrub Tillandsia Cardinal Airplant N LE Yes hammocks, cypress swamps, Fall fasiculata var pinelands densispica Tillandsia Banded Wild-Pine N LT Yes hammocks, cypress swamps, Fall flexuosa pineland, scrub; Tillandsia Giant Wild-Pine N LE Yes hammocks, cypress swamps, Fall utriculata pinelands Tragia saxicola Pineland Noseburn N LT Yes pine rocklands Jun- Nov. Trema Lamarck’s Trema N LE Yes hammocks, disturbed areas, All year lamarckianum roadsides, Tripsacum Florida Gamagrass N LT Yes pine rockland; Jan-Jul. floridanum Zephyranthes Simpson’s Zephyrlily N LT No wet flatwoods and prairie Spring simpsonii
STATE STATUS - LE = Endangered; LT = Threatened
FEDERAL STATUS - C = Candidate species for which federal listing agencies have sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposing to list the species as Endangered or Threatened
Prior to the pre-clearing listed plant surveys, aerial field maps will be prepared illustrating outlines of the proposed construction areas, soil types, and wetlands. Surveys will be conducted by botanists experienced in the field identification and biology of rare, threatened, and endangered plants that occur in Miami-Dade County consistent with approved conditions of certification.
6.0 CONSERVATION AND MONITORING PLAN Impacts to threatened and endangered species will be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable prior to and during construction as well as during operation of the Project. The conservation and monitoring plan describes the potential impacts of construction and operation of the
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 44 - 093-87652
Project upon threatened and endangered species and proposed efforts to minimize and mitigate unavoidable impacts, including loss of habitat.
Impacts to threatened and endangered species habitat will be compensated through the enhancement, restoration, and preservation of over 800 acres of habitat consistent with the regional restoration goals of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area as well as supporting the continued restoration activities at the Everglades Mitigation Bank and Hole in the Donut Mitigation Bank.
As construction will impact potential crocodile foraging and basking habitat at the Site, FPL will conduct habitat enhancement and creation activities designed to improve crocodile habitat within and adjacent to the cooling canal system, including creation of additional juvenile freshwater refugia areas upon selected berms, substrate enhancement to create suitable nesting habitat upon selected berms that have not historically supported crocodile nests, and construction of an additional crocodile nesting and foraging sanctuary (Sea Dade Canal Crocodile Sanctuary) south of the cooling canal system within the EMB.
FPL will also create a system of wildlife underpasses along the access road north of the cooling canal system in order to facilitate safe passage for crocodiles and other species. Additional wildlife protection features, such as fencing, enlarged culverts, and a 6-foot box culvert wildlife underpass, will be incorporated into the temporary construction access roadway improvements on SW 359th Street between the L-31E Canal and SW 137th Avenue.
The following provides details of the existing FPL crocodile management program and the Project’s proposed species-specific conservation and monitoring measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for any impacts to threatened and endangered species.
6.1 American Crocodile Management Program FPL initiated a formal comprehensive crocodile management program for the cooling canal system facility in the early 1980s, consisting of a combination of the following:
Habitat preservation and creation of habitat suitable for crocodile nesting and basking; Establishment of exclusion zones at known nesting sites (nest sanctuaries);
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 45 - 093-87652
Daytime and nighttime monitoring surveys to document nesting activity and utilization of the cooling canal system; Capture and tagging of hatchlings using American Veterinary Identification Devices (AVID) microchip technology; Relocation of hatchlings to low-salinity habitat during early life stages to increase survival; and Recapture, monitoring, and release of individuals to document growth and survival. FPL has been issued Special Purpose Permits #WX06467A and #TE092945-2 by the FWC and the USFWS (Appendix B) to capture American crocodiles for marking, recapture, scientific data collection purposes, and to relocate crocodiles as necessary. In addition to the monitoring and habitat enhancement activities that directly benefit the crocodile, FPL also has enacted an extensive crocodile awareness program to educate the public as to the status of the crocodile in south Florida. All of these existing activities will continue throughout the construction and operation phases of the new Units 6 & 7.
The management program has been extremely successful, evidenced by the annual increase in active nests and the number of hatchlings produced. The number of successful nests has increased dramatically, with an average of 0.7 additional successful nests per year from 1978 to 1999 (Tucker et al., 2004). Additionally, the number of hatchlings has increased at a rate of 13 (±2) per year within the Turkey Point plant property (Tucker et al., 2004). Nest locations documented between 1978 and 2009 are illustrated in Figure 16. Not all of these nests are currently active. Nest locations documented during the 2010 surveys are illustrated in Figure 17.
FPL administers the site in accordance with a management program for crocodiles that was initially established in 1983 and revised in 1991, 2007 and 2009. The management program addresses the following:
Constraints on vehicular traffic within the cooling canal system at night and during critical periods of the nesting season; Constraints on road maintenance and construction activities at night, during critical periods of the nesting season, and within known crocodile crossing sites; Identification and avoidance of nest site sanctuaries; Population monitoring program (nests, hatchlings, hatchling growth, and survival); and
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 46 - 093-87652
Training requirements for site personnel handling hatchlings and using equipment in the area.
FPL also has been active in removing exotic plants, particularly Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), as recommended by the USFWS (South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, 1999). FPL is currently implementing many of the Plan’s recommendations for the American crocodile, including:
Conducting a long-term monitoring program; Conducting a mark-recapture program to quantify growth and survival; Protecting nesting, basking, and nursery habitat; and Maintaining current nesting sites.
FPL’s efforts have resulted in a significant increase in the number of crocodile nests and hatchlings in the cooling canals over nearly three decades, from 2 nests and 30 hatchlings in the late 1970s to 24 known nests and 548 hatchlings in 2009. The nesting habitat and refugia maintained by FPL within the cooling canal system has been responsible for virtually the entire increase in population of the American crocodile reported in south Florida over the past 25 years (Tucker et al., 2004).
The following outlines the management and monitoring programs for the American crocodile at the Turkey Point Plant.
6.1.1 Maintenance and Preservation of Nesting, Basking, and Nursery Habitat Since nesting was discovered within the cooling canals in 1976, FPL has enacted a series of management activities to improve the quality of habitat available to the crocodile and preserve known nesting sites. Natural nesting habitat includes sites with sandy shorelines or raised marl creek banks adjacent to deep water (USFWS, 1999). Berms within the cooling canal system consist of spoils materials dredged from the construction of the adjacent canals, including peat and marl soils that are preferred nesting substrate. Success of nests in south Florida is dependent primarily on the maintenance of suitable egg cavity moisture throughout incubation (USFWS, 1999), as well as the effects of predation. Flooding or desiccation can result in nest failure. The consistent water levels present within cooling canal system increase the percentage of successful nests.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 47 - 093-87652
Encroachment of exotic vegetation has degraded thousands of acres of wildlife habitat in south Florida, primarily Australian pine, melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), and Brazilian pepper (USFWS, 1999). Control of exotic vegetation is crucial for the creation and preservation of crocodile nesting and basking habitat. Basking habitat is characterized by raised, relatively open areas with surrounding native vegetation. Since exotic species often regrow quickly and invade new areas, periodic efforts to control exotic vegetation are required to maintain suitability of nesting sites.
Although American crocodiles have salt glands that excrete excess salt and physiological mechanisms to reduce water loss (Dunson, 1970, 1980, 1982; Evans and Ellis, 1977; Dunson and Mazzotti, 1989; Mazzotti, 1989), maintenance of an osmotic balance requires access to low-salinity water for juveniles (USFWS, 1999). Hatchling crocodiles are particularly susceptible to osmoregulatory stress and may need to have water with salinity less than 4 ppt available at least once per week to increase growth until reaching approximately 200 grams in weight (Mazzotti et al., 1986; Mazzotti and Dunson, 1984). Frequent rainfall typically provides a sufficient amount of freshwater, although hatchlings occasionally die during periods of low rainfall. To increase hatchling survival, FPL releases some tagged hatchlings to low-salinity environments, such as the depressional areas on top of cooling canal berms designed to retain freshwater and provide refugia for juveniles.
Existing nesting sites and newly discovered successful nesting sites are protected as sanctuaries, and are not cleared or disturbed in any way. All nest site sanctuaries extend the entire width of the berm and typically are 100 meters in length. The boundaries of each sanctuary are clearly marked with 14- by 15-inch signs that state “FPL CROCODILE NESTING AREA” to inform maintenance personnel of their locations (Figure 18). Maintenance activities, including clearing, burning, or dredging within 300 yards of any nest sanctuary during the nesting season (March 1 to September 30) must be coordinated by the FPL Land Utilization Site Superintendent in consultation with the FPL Senior Environmental Specialist.
6.1.2 Constraints on Traffic, Maintenance, and Construction Disturbance is one of the major factors adversely affecting the success of crocodiles in south Florida, either directly through road kills or indirectly, by intimidating individual crocodiles from returning to their preferred habitat (Ogden, 1978; Kushlan, 1988). Disturbance has the greatest effect during the nesting season when females make frequent trips to the nest. Observations suggest that repeated close human presence may cause female crocodiles to abandon nests or relocate nest sites (Kushlan and Mazotti, 1989).
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 48 - 093-87652
Traffic, maintenance, and construction activity during reproductive periods may discourage courtship and mating within the cooling canals and surrounding canals. Nighttime traffic may result in abandonment of nests or death of hatchling crocodiles dispersing from the cooling canals to the interceptor ditch (Wilcox and Mazzotti, 1990). Blocking crocodile berm-crossing points impedes travel and may result in the termination of nesting activity by females. To minimize the disturbance of crocodile activity and still allow for the construction of the Project, required maintenance of the cooling canals and surrounding vicinity, and placement of spoil materials, the following constraints on vehicular traffic, maintenance, and construction will be followed:
Minimize vehicular traffic (particularly heavy equipment) in the industrial wastewater facility south of SW 359th Street, with the exception of the Units 6 & 7 Site and berms adjacent to the Grand Canal and the southern perimeter berm; Minimize any vehicular disturbance along the southern perimeter berm from June to August, corresponding to the hatching and post-hatching life stages; With the exception of the berms adjacent to Grand Canal, SW 359th Street, and the Units 6 & 7 Site, minimize any vehicular activity (except necessary security patrols, maintenance, and monitoring) at night within the industrial wastewater facility during all times of the year; Do not allow routine road maintenance or construction for canal berm roads during daytime hours between March and September, or at night during any time of the year; Do not block known crocodile crossing sites with fill, and do not create any barriers at known crossing points, including leaving construction materials or equipment overnight; Minimize boating within the canals during all times of the year; and Ensure that site personnel are trained in crocodile habitat protection techniques.
To further reduce the potential for vehicular impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project, FPL is proposing to install a system of wildlife underpasses to allow crocodiles to move safely under the primary access road to the plant when traveling between the cooling canal system and the test cooling canals and associated freshwater ponds on the berms to the north (Figure 19). The proposed crossings will be bottomless culverts constructed of precast concrete with wing walls to divert wildlife through the openings (Figure 20). Chain link fencing with mesh size small enough to prohibit passage of hatchling crocodiles or other suitable fencing (3 meters high) will also be installed on either side of the primary access road to the plant from the L-31E Canal east along the length of
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 49 - 093-87652 the test cooling canal area to facilitate utilization of the underpasses and discourage attempts to cross the access road. This wildlife underpass design is similar to those used successfully in other parts of the country for control of the movement of wildlife and should significantly reduce and/or eliminate the probability of traffic mortalities associated with the Site access road. 6.1.3 Population Monitoring Monitoring of the number and location of nests, production of hatchlings, and their growth and survival has been conducted within the Turkey Point plant property since 1978. Surveys are conducted to identify nest locations, nest sites are revisited during the hatching period, and each hatchling is captured, permanently marked for identification, measured, weighed, sexed, and released. Permanent identification allows for the recapture of individuals after several years to document survival and growth rates.
Surveys are conducted throughout the year, with different surveys conducted in different seasons based upon crocodile behavior and life history. The population monitoring program at the Turkey Point Plant involves surveys conducted during the breeding, nesting, hatching, and post-hatching phases of the crocodile’s life cycle, as well as on-going surveys documenting crocodile activities.
6.1.4 Public Outreach and Education Public education is required to provide accurate biological information and to stimulate interest in the conservation of the American crocodile (USFWS, 1999). As part of FPL’s commitment to raising public awareness about the threatened American crocodile in south Florida, FPL publishes extensive information in both electronic and written formats, which is made available free of charge to environmental groups, schools, regulatory agencies, and the general public. In addition, FPL has made the Turkey Point Plant available to major media groups such as National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, and CNN, numerous newspapers and television series for filming educational documentaries and preparing articles about the American crocodile and the success of the breeding population within the cooling canal system.
6.1.5 Units 6 & 7 Crocodile Conservation and Monitoring Plan The conservation and monitoring plan for the Project addresses specific actions to be taken prior to the initiation of clearing, during construction, and following construction to ensure that adverse impacts to the crocodiles are avoided.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 50 - 093-87652
The conservation and monitoring plan is designed to ensure that the crocodiles will not be adversely impacted as a result of the Project. The plan involves the continuation of the existing Turkey Point Threatened and Endangered Species Management Program, expansion of the scope to include the Site, and the addition of specific actions pre-construction, during construction, and post-construction as follows:
A. Pre-Construction Pre-clearing surveys will be conducted throughout the Site to locate any individual crocodiles utilizing the Site. Day and night surveys will be conducted twice monthly at the Site prior to initiation of construction activities. Individuals may be live-captured by non-harmful means by authorized FPL personnel and relocated to the cooling canals. Captured crocodiles will be processed and held only long enough to transport them to a suitable release site within the canals. The existing American crocodile protection/education plan will be utilized to include the Project for all construction personnel to follow. A program of lectures, brochures, videos, and informational signs will be utilized for all construction personnel to become familiar with the crocodile’s protected status under federal law. Information included in the education materials will include, at a minimum: a. A description of the American crocodile, its habitat and behavior, and protective status under federal law; b. Instructions not to injure, harass, or kill this species; c. A description of the appearance of crocodile signs, such as tail drags and claw marks, by which construction personnel become familiar with the identification of crocodile utilization of the construction areas; d. Directions to cease clearing activities if crocodiles are observed within the Site and allow the crocodiles sufficient time to move away from the Site prior to resuming clearing; and e. Telephone numbers of FPL Environmental Specialists to be contacted immediately upon observation of any crocodiles and/or crocodile signs in the construction areas. Preparation of a pre-construction monitoring report for submittal to the USFWS and FWC. The monitoring report will include a summary of all surveys, documentation of any crocodiles and/or crocodile signs observed at the Site, approximate size, location, and behavior of individuals observed, summaries of any relocations conducted, and identification of any relocated individuals. B. During Construction
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 51 - 093-87652
It is likely that intense human activity during construction will discourage crocodile utilization of the Site and vicinity. A perimeter wall will be installed around the plant area in the early phases of construction and should prevent crocodile intrusion into that area. In addition, to avoid adverse impacts and document any utilization of the Site during construction, the following activities will be conducted during construction: Education of all construction personnel, as described above, including installation of signs along the perimeter of the construction site alerting personnel as to the crocodile’s protected status under federal law; instructions to avoid injury, harassment, or killing of any crocodiles; and contact numbers to inform FPL Environmental Specialists of any crocodile observations. Monitoring surveys will be conducted within the construction areas weekly. Both day and night surveys will be performed, and any crocodiles within the Site will be live-captured through non-harmful means and released to the canals. Daily monitoring surveys will be conducted in the active construction zone by a contractor trained by FPL’s Environmental Specialists. Observations of any crocodile signs or individual crocodiles will be documented and immediately reported to the supervising contractor and FPL’s Environmental Specialists. If crocodiles are observed within the active construction zone, all work will cease immediately and the individuals will be live-captured through non-harmful means, processed and released. Minimization of traffic disturbance and installation of wildlife underpasses and small-diameter mesh fencing along the primary access road, as described in Section 6.1.2 (Constraints on Traffic, Maintenance, and Construction), will occur to during the construction phase. Spoils material from the Site will be transported via truck using the roads adjacent to the Grand Canal. The use of the Grand Canal roads ensures that traffic associated with the transport of spoils materials will be routed so as to avoid disturbance of nesting sanctuaries. Spoils material will be deposited along the Grand Canal berms and the berm on the southern boundary of the cooling canals (see Figure 6), avoiding areas of crocodile nesting habitat and juvenile nursery areas. Trucks transporting spoils materials will abide by the vehicular constraints outlined in this plan. Preparation of monthly monitoring reports for submittal to USFWS and FWC summarizing results of the weekly day/night surveys conducted within the Site as well as results of the daily surveys conducted within the active construction zone. C. Post-Construction Following construction, the Site will become part of the overall Turkey Point Threatened and Endangered Species Monitoring and Management Program. Although highly unlikely due to the level of human activity and surrounding barriers, any nuisance crocodiles observed within the Project will be captured and relocated to the cooling canals. A summary of post-construction activities follows:
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 52 - 093-87652
The Site will remain part of the overall Turkey Point crocodile monitoring and management program; and Mitigation activities will be designed to benefit crocodiles through habitat enhancement and creation activities designed to improve crocodile habitat within and adjacent to the industrial wastewater treatment facility, including creation of additional juvenile freshwater refugia areas upon selected berms, substrate enhancement to create suitable nesting habitat upon selected berms that have not historically supported crocodile nests, and construction of an additional crocodile nesting and foraging sanctuary (Sea Dade Canal Crocodile Sanctuary) south of the industrial wastewater treatment facility within the EMB.
6.2 Eastern Indigo Snake Adverse impacts to the eastern indigo snake will be minimized through traffic control and wildlife fencing along construction access roads as discussed in Section 8.0, wildlife training of all Project contractors, posting of informational signage, and continued presence of native habitat adjacent to areas of proposed construction.
All construction personnel will receive mandatory wildlife training to include identification of protected species potentially occurring within the construction areas/access roads and notice to stop work and notify FPL environmental managers if eastern indigo snakes are observed within the work area.
FPL will comply with the USFWS Standard Protection Measures for eastern indigo Snakes, including posting of informational signs along the access roads to contain the following information, at a minimum:
a. A description and photograph of the eastern indigo snake, its habits, and protection under Federal Law; b. Instructions not to injure, harm, harass or kill this species; c. Directions to cease clearing activities and allow the species sufficient time to move away from the site on its own before resuming clearing; and, d. Telephone numbers of pertinent agencies to be contacted if a dead individual is encountered. The dead specimen should be thoroughly soaked in water and then frozen.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 53 - 093-87652
6.3 Wood Stork The conservation and monitoring plan for the wood stork involves mitigation to offset impacts to suitable foraging habitat within CFAs, installation of protective features on transmission facilities within the vicinity of wood stork colonies to reduce potential for collisions, and monitoring as part of a Mitigation Effectiveness Study.
An evaluation of the loss of wood stork foraging habitat within the CFAs associated with the West Preferred Corridor will be conducted in accordance with the USFWS wood stork foraging assessment methodology contained within the 2010 USFWS South Florida Wood Stork Effect Determination Key. The evaluation will be based upon the worst-case estimate of wetland impacts within CFAs associated with the West Preferred Corridor, the vegetative community composition of impacted wetlands relative to suitable wood stork foraging habitat, and the approximate hydroperiods of impacted wetlands. The impacts will be quantified as the total loss of fish biomass (kg) associated with loss of foraging habitat, and revised after detailed transmission line design and location to refine wetland impact location, type, and extent.
FPL will compensate for wetland impacts within wood stork CFAs through mitigation that provides for equal or greater wood stork foraging habitat value, measured as the estimated prey biomass available on an annual basis. The assessment of mitigation will be conducted in accordance with the USFWS guidance based upon the acreage of wetland restoration, evaluation of the pre-restoration and post-restoration condition of vegetative communities and hydroperiods relative to suitable wood stork foraging habitat, and the resulting increase in prey biomass available for wood storks.
Consistent with the requirements of the USFWS and approved conditions of certification, FPL will install flight diverters and perch discouragers along the transmission facilities. Flight diverters have been shown to reduce mortality due to collisions, while perch discouragers are installed on transmission structure pole tops and arms to reduce risks from nest building and streamers (defecation), as well as further reduce the exposure and potential risk of electrocutions.
6.4 Least Tern The conservation plan for the least tern involves scheduling construction activities outside of the nesting season (April through September) when located within active nesting areas as identified during pre-clearing surveys unless otherwise approved by FWC and USFWS. To ensure the continued presence of suitable nesting habitat, relatively open areas of gravel substrate will remain within the Turkey Point plant following construction of the Project, to the greatest extent practicable. Berms within the cooling canal system will be maintained so as to provide potential nesting habitat.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 54 - 093-87652
The cooling canal system contains over 100 miles of elevated berms, of which large areas provide potential habitat for least terns.
6.5 Florida Manatee FPL has an existing Manatee Protection Plan, contained in the Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Equipment Barge Delivery Plan (SCA Appendix 10.7.1.2), to avoid any impacts to the Florida manatee during the equipment barge equipment unloading area expansion. The Standard Manatee Conditions for In- Water Work (Appendix C) will be followed for all in-water activity located where waters are accessible to manatees, including the equipment barge unloading area expansion, transmission lines, or pipelines. Any culverts constructed as part of the Project will be constructed in accordance with the CERP Interagency Manatee Task Force Manatee Conservation Plan (CERP, 2003), as applicable.
At least 60 days prior to the beginning of in-water construction located where waters are accessible to manatees, FPL will contact the FWC to determine whether observers shall be required, how many observers will be needed and who those observers will be. If observers are recommended, manatee observers will be on site during all in-water construction activities and will advise personnel to cease operation upon sighting a manatee within 50 feet of any in-water construction activity.
If a cofferdam is used during in-water construction to minimize release of sediment, the area inside (behind) the cofferdam will be checked for the presence of manatees during and after installation of the barrier before further work occurs to determine that manatees have not been entrapped.
Movement of a work barge, other associated vessels, or any in-water work associated with construction activities in areas frequented by manatees will not be performed after sunset. Following Project completion, a report summarizing manatee sightings, collisions or injuries will be submitted to FWC’s Imperiled Species Management Section within 30 days following Project completion.
6.6 Snail Kite The conservation plan for the snail kite focuses on avoidance and minimization of impacts to suitable snail kite foraging and nesting habitat and replacement of the loss of habitat through the Project’s mitigation plan. In the event that pre-clearing surveys determine that the Project has the potential to impact snail kites, FPL will consult with FWC and USFWS for appropriate mitigation.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 55 - 093-87652
6.7 Mangrove Rivulus Minimization of impacts to the mangrove rivulus will be achieved through avoidance of areas of suitable habitat to the greatest extent practicable, and enhancement, restoration, and preservation of large parcels of wetlands that provide potential habitat for the mangrove rivulus. As the mangrove rivulus prefers stagnant pools and old mosquito ditches within mangrove forests, Project impacts to areas of suitable mangrove rivulus habitat are primarily limited to the proposed restoration of sawgrass marsh and mangrove wetlands through removal of mosquito ditches in the Northwest Restoration Site located between the Florida City Canal and North Canal. Topographic heterogeneity will exist within the restored parcel, providing microhabitats suitable to mangrove rivulus following completion of mitigation activities at the Northwest Restoration Site.
6.8 Everglades Mink The conservation plan for the Everglades mink focuses on avoidance and minimization of impacts to suitable mink foraging and denning habitat and replacement of the loss of habitat through the Project’s mitigation plan. In the event that pre-clearing surveys determine the presence of Everglades mink on the west transmission line right-of-way, impacts to occupied habitat will be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable through modification of transmission line access road location or alteration of span lengths and associated transmission structure pads in coordination with the FWC.
6.9 Florida Panther The conservation plan for the Florida panther involves incorporation of wildlife protection features within temporary construction access roadways as discussed in Section 8.0, including fencing, a 6- foot box culvert wildlife underpass, reduced speed limits upon both temporary construction access roadways and transmission line access roads, wildlife training of all construction personnel, and compensatory mitigation to offset impacts to panther habitat, if required.
FPL will take proper precautions during clearing and construction to protect panthers from accidental injury during construction, and report any panther observations (dead or alive) by employees or contractors within 24 hours to the FWC after verification by a qualified expert. Construction policies and practices identified by the FWC to protect panthers will be used whenever feasible, including limiting speeds on temporary construction access and transmission line access roads to 45 mph, consistent with approved conditions of certification.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 56 - 093-87652
Breedlove, Dennis, & Associates, Inc. (BDA, 2009) estimated the impacts to Florida panther habitat for the Project (Appendix D) using the USFWS methodology. The proposed transmission line, associated structures, fill pads, and unimproved access roads are expected to only temporarily affect Florida panther habitat during the construction phase. Available data demonstrate that Florida panthers co-exist with transmission line rights-of-way, jeep trails, dirt roads, and canal levees in other areas of their range, and panthers occur on these features at a frequency greater than their random occurrence within panther home ranges. Elevated fill areas may be expected to improve foraging and high-water refuge opportunities for deer, the principal prey species of panthers. The long-term functionality of panther habitats within and adjacent to the new transmission line corridor will be maintained without adverse effect.
Loss of panther habitat associated with the temporary construction access roadway improvements is expected to be minimized in some areas and temporary in others as FPL intends to restore publicly owned rights-of-way to pre-project configurations, and improvements on SW 359th Street will be returned to an 18-foot drivable transmission line access road upon completion of construction. The temporary construction access roadway improvements are proposed in an area at the urban fringe of the Primary Zone and there are very few acres of habitat that could be accessed in the future by panthers moving north or east of the proposed roadways. Moreover, panthers have not been observed in the vicinity in over 20 years, and the likelihood of future panther occurrence in the area would be low. Installation of wildlife protection features, described in Section 8.0, panther crossing signs, and reduced speed limits will minimize the likelihood of future panther collisions with motor vehicles in event that panthers do move into this area at some time in the future. Moreover, training will be provided to construction personnel to increase their awareness of and need to avoid Florida panthers and other listed species of wildlife, including notice to stop work and notify FPL environmental managers if protected species are observed within the work area. FPL will work with the USFWS and other appropriate agencies to determine actual mitigation recommendations for the direct and temporary loss of panther habitats after a final design for linear Project features has been achieved, consistent with the conditions of site certification.
6.10 Other Listed Avian Species The conservation plan for other threatened, endangered, and avian species of special concern includes avoidance and minimization of impacts to suitable foraging and nesting habitat, replacement of the loss of habitat through the Project’s mitigation plan, and scheduling construction activities outside of the nesting season in areas containing active nests located during pre-clearing surveys.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 57 - 093-87652
In addition, FPL will coordinate with the FWC in the development of an Avian Protection Plan that delineates a program for threatened, endangered, and avian species of special concern designed to reduce the operational and avian risks that result from avian interactions with transmission lines associated with the Project with the goal of reducing avian mortality. FPL coordinated closely with USFWS in 2007 to develop an Avian Protection Plan (Appendix E), which will be updated accordingly. 6.11 Listed Plant Species Impacts to listed plant species from linear facilities will be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable through modification of facility design, such as variance in transmission line span lengths, relocation of transmission structure pads, or modification of access road alignment. Relocation of individuals, if feasible, may be conducted. All relocations will be coordinated as appropriate with the USFWS, FWC, and/or MDC.
7.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT The following summarizes the likelihood of adverse affect based upon the habitat preferences, status within the Project area, avoidance and minimization efforts, wildlife protection features, and mitigation measures proposed for each species.
7.1 Species Not Likely to be Affected The Project is not likely to adversely affect the eastern indigo snake, Florida manatee, snail kite, mangrove rivulus, Everglades mink, Florida panther, little blue heron, reddish egret, white ibis, snowy egret, roseate spoonbill, tricolored heron, white-crowned pigeon, or listed species of plants.
Adverse affects to eastern indigo snake are not anticipated due to the utilization of wildlife protection features in temporary construction access roadway design and operation, adherence to the USFWS Standard Protection Measures for the eastern indigo snake, lack of documented occurrence within the Project area, and lack of significant impacts to upland habitats preferred by the eastern indigo snake.
No adverse impacts to manatees are expected, as manatees are not known to congregate or occur within the existing turning basin, construction will be conducted in accordance with the FWC Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work, no collisions or adverse impacts to manatees have occurred at the Turkey Point Plant, and the existing Manatee Protection Plan for the Turkey Point Plant will continue to be followed during construction and operation of the Project. With regards to
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 58 - 093-87652 potential manatee occurrence within canals located in the reclaimed water pipeline corridor and East Preferred Corridor, no impacts are anticipated due to the temporary nature of disturbance associated with pipeline installation, adherence to the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work, and ability of transmission facilities to span areas of open water canals.
The Project is located outside of the federally-designated critical habitat for the snail kite. Any impacts to suitable snail kite foraging or nesting habitat will be offset through wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation associated with the Project’s mitigation plan.
Mangrove rivulus and the Everglades mink have not been reported within the Project area; any impacts to potential habitat for these species are expected to be minor and offset through the Project’s mitigation plan.
No adverse affect to the Florida panther is anticipated, due to lack of recent documented occurrences within the Project Area, the increase in development associated with Homestead and Florida City since the last panther telemetry points were recorded within the vicinity of the Site and associated facilities, incorporation of wildlife protection features into temporary construction access roadway design, enforcement of 45 MPH speed limits, wildlife training for all construction personnel, and installation of wildlife crossing and protected species information signage.
The Project is not anticipated to adversely affect the little blue heron, reddish egret, white ibis, snowy egret, roseate spoonbill, tricolored heron, or white-crowned pigeon. These listed species of birds are highly mobile, able to access large areas of similar habitat in the vicinity of the Project during construction and operation, and are not dependent upon the Site for nesting or foraging. Active nesting areas will be avoided during construction, and loss of potential foraging habitat will be offset through the Project’s mitigation plan.
Impacts to listed species of plants will be avoided and minimized through utilization of pre-clearing surveys, modification of linear facility design to the greatest extent practicable, and relocation of individuals where feasible. No population-level impacts to listed species of plants are anticipated; avoidance and minimization efforts will support the continued existence of viable populations of threatened and endangered plants during construction and operation of the Project.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 59 - 093-87652
7.2 Species Likely to be Affected Listed species likely to be affected within the Site and associated facilities are limited to the American crocodile, wood stork, and least tern, which may be affected through loss of potential foraging or nesting habitat. Although these species may be affected, due to the Project’s avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts it is not likely that significant adverse impacts will occur. The Project’s mitigation efforts have been designed to offset the potential impacts to listed species through habitat creation, restoration, enhancement, and preservation that fully replaces the loss of potential listed species foraging and nesting habitat associated with construction of the Project.
7.2.1 American Crocodile Construction at the Site will impact approximately 250 acres of low quality wetlands within the industrial wastewater treatment facility. Although this area is located within the USFWS-designated critical habitat area for the crocodile, historical monitoring of the crocodile population within the cooling canals indicates occasional observations of basking crocodiles along the perimeter of the Site, but no utilization of the Site for nesting, and limited potential for foraging due to the altered and highly variable hydrology and limited food supply. As construction will impact potential crocodile foraging and basking habitat at the Site, FPL will conduct habitat enhancement and creation activities designed to improve crocodile habitat within and adjacent to the cooling canal system, including creation of additional juvenile freshwater refugia areas upon selected berms, vegetative restoration, substrate enhancement to create suitable nesting habitat upon selected berms that have not historically supported crocodile nests, and construct of an additional crocodile nesting and foraging sanctuary south of the cooling canal system within the EMB.
Spoils materials generated from Site preparation will be added to areas of existing spoils along the southern boundary of the cooling canal system and the berms adjacent to the Grand Canal. These spoils areas do not contain suitable nesting habitat, nor do they contain any freshwater refugia for juvenile crocodiles; therefore, no adverse impacts to the breeding population are anticipated.
Traffic along SW 359th Street east of the L-31E Canal could potentially impact crocodile movement between the cooling canal system and the test cooling canals. This potential impact will be mitigated through construction of wildlife underpasses and reduced speed limits. In addition, transmission structures placed upon the berms within the northern portion of the cooling canal system and associated access bridges from SW 359th Street will be situated to avoid crocodile nesting areas.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 60 - 093-87652
Construction of the FPL reclaimed water treatment facility at the potential alternative location will impact approximately 3 acres of excavated canals and ditches that provide potential crocodile habitat. No significant adverse impact to crocodiles is anticipated due to construction of the reclaimed water treatment facility within the potential alternative location, as large areas of similar excavated open water habitat occur to the east (test cooling canals under conservation easement) and south (interceptor ditch). The existing crocodile management and monitoring protocols described in Section 6.1 will be adhered to prior to, during, and following construction activities, in order to minimize impacts to individual crocodiles as well as the breeding population.
7.2.2 Wood Stork Due to the location of the West Preferred Corridor within the CFAs of nine wood stork colonies and recommended maximum secondary protection zones (2,500 feet) of two colonies, the wood stork is likely to be affected through loss of foraging habitat and potential increased risk of collision. FPL will compensate for wetland impacts within wood stork CFAs through mitigation that provides for equal or greater wood stork foraging habitat value, measured as the estimated prey biomass available on an annual basis. The assessment of mitigation will be conducted in accordance with the USFWS guidance based upon the acreage of wetland restoration, evaluation of the pre-restoration and post- restoration condition of vegetative communities and hydroperiods relative to suitable wood stork foraging habitat, and the resulting increase in prey biomass available for wood storks.
Consistent with the requirements of the USFWS and approved conditions of certification, FPL will install flight diverters and perch discouragers along the transmission facilities to reduce the potential risk of collision.
7.2.3 Least Tern Least terns may be affected due to the loss of potential nesting habitat associated with the Site and associated facilities. The least tern is not anticipated to be adversely affected due to scheduling of construction activities outside of the nesting season (April through September) when adjacent to any active nesting areas located during pre-clearing surveys and the continued presence of relatively open areas of gravel substrate suitable for nesting habitat within the Turkey Point plant following construction of the Project. Over 100 miles of elevated berms within the cooling canal system provide potential nesting habitat for least terns.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 61 - 093-87652
8.0 MITIGATION PLAN Wetland impacts associated with the Project will be mitigated through a combination of regional wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation initiatives furthering the regional restoration goals of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area and the Model Lands Basin, as well as use of the agency approved mitigation banks, including the FDEP- and USACE-approved EMB. The refined Mitigation Plan (SCA Appendix 10.4, Section 2, Attachment E, Rev. 2, July 2011) was provided with the SCA Plant and Associated Non- Transmission Facilities 5th Round Completeness Responses CD at Attachments\5-MDC-A-25.
Mitigation activities proposed within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands area include restoration, enhancement, and preservation of over 800 acres of wetland parcels adjacent to the L-31E Canal which will benefit regional ecosystem restoration plans. The conveyance of some of these FPL mitigation parcels to the public trust would connect the restored lands with state and federal environmentally protected lands to the east, completing acquisition of an important segment of the of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project. The proposed wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation will provide an increase in suitable wildlife habitat, specifically benefitting wading birds and shorebirds. Mitigation proposed within the Model Lands Basin is designed to provide an increase in wetland/wildlife habitat through creation of a crocodile nesting sanctuary, continuing FPL’s role as an environmental steward for this endangered species, as well as restoration of wetlands associated with the temporary construction access roadways and utilization of wildlife protection features in construction access road design.
8.1 Sea Dade Canal Crocodile Sanctuary The proposed Sea Dade Canal Crocodile Sanctuary involves creation of wetlands impacted by historical dredging and filling, topographic grading and planting, creation of low-salinity ponds for juvenile crocodile refugia, and creation of habitat conditions with suitable nesting substrate specifically benefitting the crocodile. The approximately 6.4-acre area is located southwest of the cooling canal system, adjacent to the Sea Dade Canal and an existing meteorological tower (Figure 21). The target community is modeled after the successful crocodile sanctuary created upon previously filled land within the EMB in 2008. A post-enhancement conceptual design is presented in Figure 22. Similar to the design utilized at the EMB crocodile sanctuary, areas of previously filled uplands within the Sea Dade Canal Crocodile Sanctuary will be graded and connected to existing borrow pond areas to create an open water lagoon habitat. The proven mixture of peat, marl, and sand will be used along the slopes and banks to create ideal crocodile nesting substrate. The lagoon will be
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 62 - 093-87652 connected to the Sea Dade Canal on the eastern edge near the existing access road. It will be connected to the western borrow pond and a second connection to the Sea Dade Canal will also be constructed within the western borrow pond to facilitate wildlife access to the sanctuary. Perched ponds designed to collect rainwater and provide low-salinity juvenile crocodile refugia will be created surrounding the primary lagoon. Nesting mounds of peat, marl, and sand will be constructed adjacent to and surrounding the low-salinity ponds. In addition to providing a nesting sanctuary for crocodiles, the area will provide potential foraging habitat for wading birds, including wood storks, through the creation of shallow freshwater ponds suitable for tactile feeding.
In addition to creation of the Sea Dade Crocodile Sanctuary, FPL will continue habitat enhancement and construction of depressional areas on the berms within the southern portion of the cooling canal system during construction and operation of the Project, which will further increase the quality of habitat for the crocodile and promote juvenile survival and growth through provision of additional areas of freshwater refugia.
8.2 Access Roadway Wildlife Protection Features Additional mitigation activities designed to reduce, eliminate, and mitigate potential impacts to threatened and endangered species include wildlife protection features on roadways. Wildlife protection features are proposed on SW 359th Street east of the L-31E Canal to reduce potential impacts of construction traffic upon crocodiles, while wildlife protection features proposed on SW 359th Street west of the L-31E Canal are designed to discourage mammalian and herpetofauna access to the temporary construction access roadways.
The proposed wildlife underpasses associated with SW 359th Street east of the L-31E Canal will ameliorate the potential impacts of construction traffic upon crocodiles between the cooling canal system and the test cooling canals. The proposed wildlife crossings will be bottomless culverts constructed of precast concrete with wing walls to guide the crocodiles through the openings. Fence barriers will be installed and trenched into the ground on either side of the access road from the L- 31E Canal east along the length of the test cooling canal area to promote utilization of the wildlife underpasses.
Most research on the use of highway underpasses by wildlife has focused on hoofed mammals (Reed et al., 1975; Singer and Doherty, 1985 in Foster and Humphrey, 1995). However, there is ample evidence of wildlife underpass benefits with regards to reduction in reptile and amphibian mortality in Florida. On U.S. Highway 441 through Paynes Prairie State Preserve in Alachua County, a wildlife
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 63 - 093-87652 underpass system was constructed consisting of an approximately 1 meter tall concrete wall located parallel to the roadway with 8 culverts to allow wildlife movement underneath the roadway. Alligator, snake, turtle, and frog mortality declined dramatically after construction of the underpass (Barichivich and Dodd, 2002).
Alligators have been documented utilizing the wildlife underpasses installed as part of the upgrade of Alligator Alley (Interstate 75) in southwestern Florida from two lanes to four (Foster and Humphrey, 1995). Most of the underpasses along Alligator Alley consist of two bridges constructed of concrete with a 3-meter high chain link fence topped with three strands of barbed wire to prohibit animals from entering the highway right-of-way. Given the use of wildlife underpasses by alligators, it is expected that crocodiles will adapt to utilize the proposed wildlife underpasses at the Turkey Point plant property.
In addition to the crocodile underpasses discussed above, FPL is also proposing to install wildlife protection fencing, enlarged culverts, and a 6-foot box culvert wildlife underpass in association with the temporary construction access roadway improvements along SW 359th Street from the L31 Canal to SW 137th Avenue in order to reduce the probability of impacts to non-listed as well as listed species of wildlife. Fencing 8-feet in height will be installed on either side of the temporary construction access roadway improvements on SW 359th Street to reduce and/or eliminate the potential for wildlife vehicular collisions (Figure 23). Geotextile fabric or similar fine-mesh material will be installed along the base of the fencing to prevent small herpetofauna from passing through the fence. Enlarged arch culverts (20 inch by 28 inch) will be installed along SW 359th Street from the L31 Canal to SW 137th Avenue to allow for passage of smaller herpetofauna, mammals, or fish.
In addition, FPL will construct a 6-foot box culvert wildlife underpass suitable for larger fauna (Figures 24 and 25). Although wildlife corridors are typically natural linear features that connect areas of significant habitat separated or surrounded by human development, such conditions do not occur within the proposed temporary construction access roadway improvements corridor. Similar habitats occur both north and south of the existing transmission line access road on SW 359th Street, although the prevalence of exotic vegetation increases northward towards SW 344th Street. The presence of upland limerock roadways and ditches provide linear features which may be utilized as preferred wildlife travel paths, while areas of forested wetlands may provide additional cover for wildlife movements. FPL has proposed locating the 6-ft box culvert wildlife underpass in an area of mixed wetland hardwoods that extend across both sides of the existing access road (Figure 26). Compared to the adjacent relatively open sawgrass marsh landscape, the mixed wetland hardwood
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 64 - 093-87652 tree canopy provides increased cover, and is located near a north-south upland limerock roadway that leads to a relatively large excavated ditch.
9.0 CONCLUSIONS FPL has preserved, to the maximum extent practicable, all habitat identified as critical to threatened and endangered species. The Plan addresses measures to be taken during construction and operation necessary to protect threatened and endangered species and their habitat, including avoidance of active nesting areas, incorporation of fencing and wildlife underpasses in access road design, and mitigation to compensate for loss of potential foraging or nesting habitat.
Through commitments to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to threatened and endangered species and their habitats, the Project is not likely to affect the eastern indigo snake, Florida manatee, snail kite, mangrove rivulus, Florida panther, wading birds classified as FWC species of special concern, the white-crowned pigeon, or listed species of plants.
Listed species likely to be affected by the Project are limited to the American crocodile, wood stork, and least tern, affected through loss of potential foraging and nesting habitat. Although these species may be affected, due to the Project’s avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts it is not likely that significant adverse affect will occur. The Project’s mitigation efforts have been designed to offset the potential impacts to listed species through habitat creation, restoration, enhancement, and preservation that fully replaces the loss of potential listed species foraging and nesting habitat associated with construction of the Project.
The conservation and management plan for pre-construction, during construction, and post- construction periods will minimize adverse impacts to the crocodile at the Site and associated facilities, and the creation of additional freshwater refugia, substrate enhancement, and vegetation control on the berms within the cooling canal system will directly benefit juvenile and nesting crocodiles. The additional creation of the Sea Dade Crocodile Sanctuary within the EMB south of the cooling canal system will provide additional suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Based on the current status of the American crocodile at the Turkey Point plant, the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the crocodile, and no reduction in the size or health of the crocodile population is anticipated.
Rev. 1 July 2011 - 65 - 093-87652
Although the Project is likely to affect the wood stork, due to the commitment to compensate for the loss of foraging habitat within wood stork CFAs and reduce the potential risk for interactions with transmission facilities through installation of flight diverters and perch discouragers, the Project is not expected to adversely impact the wood stork population. FPL will compensate for wetland impacts within wood stork CFAs through mitigation that provides for equal or greater wood stork foraging habitat value, in accordance with the USFWS guidance. Flight diverters and perch discouragers will be installed upon the transmission facilities consistent with the requirements of the USFWS and the approved conditions of certification.
Least terns may be affected due to the loss of potential nesting habitat associated with the Site and associated facilities. However it is not likely that the least tern will be adversely impacted. Construction activities will be scheduled outside of the nesting season when adjacent to any active nesting areas located during pre-clearing surveys unless otherwise approved by the FWC and USFWS. The area of potential upland nesting habitat within the Site is relatively small, and areas of suitable nesting habitat will remain within the Turkey Point plant following construction of the Project.
Rev. 1 July 2011 66 093-87652
10.0 REFERENCES Barichivich, W.J. and Dodd, C.K, Jr. 2002. The Effectiveness of Wildlife Barriers and Underpasses on U.S. Highway 441 across Paynes Prairie State Preserve, Alachua County, Florida: Phase II Post- Construction Report, July 2002. Florida Department of Transportation Contract No. BB-854. Beissinger, S.R., and J.E.Takekawa. 1983. Habitat use and dispersal by snail kites in Florida during drought conditions. Florida Field Naturalist 11:89-106. Beissinger, S. R., B. T. Thomas, and S. D. Strahl. 1988. Vocalizations, food habits, and nesting biology of the Slender-billed Kite with comparisons to the Snail Kite. Wilson Bull. 100:604-616. Belden, R. C. 1986. Florida panther recovery plan implementation - a 1983 progress report. Pages 159-172 in S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett (eds). Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. National Wildlife Federation and Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Washington, D.C. and Kingsville, TX. Belden, R. C. 1988. The Florida panther. Pages 515-532 in Audubon Wildlife Report 1988/1989. National Audubon Society, New York, NY. Belden, R. C., W. B. Frankenberger, R. T. McBride, and S. T. Schwikert. 1988. Panther habitat use in southern Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:660-663. Belden, R. C., and R. T. McBride. 2006. Florida panther peripheral areas survey final report 1998- 2004. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Bennetts, R.E., M.W. Collopy, and S.R. Beissinger. 1988. Nesting ecology of Snail Kites in Water Conservation Area 3A. Department of Wildlife and Range Science, University of Florida, Gainesville. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Technical Report No. 31, 174 p. Bennetts, R.E., M.W. Collopy, J.A. Rodgers, Jr. 1994. The snail kite in the Florida Everglades: A food specialist in a changing environment. Pp 507-532 in Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration (J. Ogden and S. Davis, eds.). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL. Brandt, L.A., F. J. Mazzotti, J. R. Wilcox, P.D. Barker, Jr., G. L. Hasty, Jr., and J. Wasilewski. 1995. Status of the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) at a power plant site in Florida, USA. Herp. Natural History. 3:20-36. Breedlove, Dennis, & Associates, Inc. (BDA). 2009. Estimated Impacts to Florida Panther Habitats, Turkey Point 6 & 7. Prepared for Florida Power & Light, Juno Beach, Florida. Browder, J.S. 1984. Wood stork feeding areas in southwest Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 12:81- 96. Cherkiss, M.C. 1999. Status and distribution of the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in Southeastern Florida: Gainesville, University of Florida, unpub. Master’s thesis. Comiskey, E. J., O. L. Bass, Jr., L. J. Gross, R. T. McBride, and R. Salinas. 2002. Panthers and forests in south Florida: an ecological perspective. Conservation Ecology 6:18. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Interagency Manatee Task Force. 2003. Manatee Conservation Plan. Coulter, M.C. 1987. Foraging and breeding ecology of wood storks in east-central Georgia. Pages 21- 27 in R.R. Odom, KA. Riddleberger, and J.C. Ozier, eds. Proceedings of the third southeastern nongame and endangered wildlife symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Atlanta, Georgia. Coulter, M.C., and A.L. Bryan, Jr. 1993. Foraging ecology of wood storks (Mycteria americana) in east-central Georgia: Characteristics of foraging sites. Colonial Waterbirds 16:59-70.
Rev. 1 July 2011 67 093-87652
Cox, J. J., D. S. Maehr, and J. L. Larkin. 2006. Florida panther habitat use: New approach to an old problem. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1778-1785. Duellman, W. E. and Schwartz, A. (1958). Amphibians and Reptiles of Southern Florida. Volume 3. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Gainesville Dunson, W.A. 1970. Some aspects of electrolyte and water balance in three estuarine reptiles, the diamondback terrapin, American and “salt water” crocodiles. Comparative Biochemical Physiology 32:161-174. Dunson, W.A. 1980. Osmoregulation of crocodiles in Everglades National Park. South Florida Research Center Report T-599. Everglades National Park; Homestead, Florida. Dunson, W.A. 1982. Salinity relations of crocodiles in Florida Bay. Copeia 1982: 374-385. Dunson, W.A. and F.J. Mazzotti. 1989. Salinity as a limiting factor in the distribution of reptiles in Florida Bay: a theory for the estuarine origin of marine snakes and turtles. Bulletin of Marine Science 44(1):229-244. Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE). 2000. Ecological Risk Assessment for American Crocodile in the Cooling canals at FPL’s Turkey Point Facility Evans, D.H. and T.M. Ellis. 1977. Sodium balance in the hatchling American crocodile, Crocodylus acutus. Comparative Biochemical Physiology 58A:159-162. Federal Register 1977. USFWS-designated critical habitat for the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). Vol. 42, No. 184, September 1977. Fisk, E.J. 1978. Roof-nesting terns, skimmers and plovers in Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 6(1): 1 – 22. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003a. Florida's breeding bird atlas: A collaborative study of Florida's birdlife. http://legacy.myfwc.com/bba/docs/bba_WHIB.pdf Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2003b, October 8. Florida’s Waterbird Colony Locator. http://www.myfwc.com/waders. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2011a. Least Tern Biological Status Review Report. http://myfwc.com/media/1351577/Least%20Tern%20Final%20BSR.pdf Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2011b. Mangrove Rivulus Biological Status Report. http://myfwc.com/media/1353792/Mangrove%20rivulus%20Final%20BSR.pdf Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2011c. Everglades Mink Biological Status Report. http://myfwc.com/media/1351523/Everglades%20mink%20Final%20BSR.pdf Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2010. Statement on Estimating Panther Population Size. December 2010. Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2001. Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida, http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/search_001.cfm Foster, M.L. and Humphrey, S.R. 1995. Use of Highway Underpasses by Florida Panthers and Other Wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 1995, 23(1):95-100. Frederick, P. and Deng, J. 1997. Bird-Strike Mortality on the Everglades Section of the Levee- Midway Powerline Florida Power & Light Co. 27 pp.
Rev. 1 July 2011 68 093-87652
Gaby, ,R., Mp. P. McMahon, F. J. Mazzotti, W. N. Gillies, and J. R. Wilcox. 1985. Ecology of a population of Crocodylus acutus at a power plant site in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 19(2): 189-198. Gore, J. A., J. A. Hovis, G. L. Sprandel, and N. J. Douglass. 2007. Distribution and abundance of breeding seabirds along the coast of Florida, 1998 – 2000. Final Performance Report, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee. Hartman, D.S. 1974. Distribution, status and conservation of the manatee in the UnitedStates. National technical information service. PB81-140725; Springfield,Virginia. Hartman, D.S. 1979. Ecology and behavior of the manatee (Trichechus manatus) in Florida. Special publication: American Society of Mammologists Special Report No. 5: 1-153. Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Southern Florida population of mink Mustela vison mink (in part). Pages 319- 327 in S.R. Humphrey (ed.), Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. I. Mammals. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. Humphrey, S.R. and H.W. Setzer. 1989. Geographic variation and taxonomic revision of mink (Mustela vison) in Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 70(2):241-252 Humphrey, S.R. and T.I. Zinn. 1982. Seasonal habitat use by river otters and Everglades mink in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:375-381. Kerkhoff, A. J., B. T. Milne, and D. S. Maehr. 2000. Toward a panther-centered view of the forests of south Florida. Conservation Ecology 4:1. Kushlan, J.A. 1988. Conservation and Management of the American Crocodile. Journal of Herpetology 23:7-21. Kushlan, J.A. and F.J. Mazzotti. 1989. Historic and present distribution of the American Crocodile in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 23:1-7. Land, E.D. and K. Taylor. 1998. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual report, study number 7508. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Tallahassee, Florida. Land, D., B. Shindle, D. Singler, and S. K. Taylor. 1999. Florida panther genetic restoration annual report 1998-99. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Litwiller, S.L., M.J. O’donnell, and P.A. Wright. 2006. Rapid increase in the partial pressure of NH3 on the cutaneous surface of air-exposed mangrove killifish, Rivulus marmoratus. Journal of Experimental Biology 209: 1737-1745. Maehr, D. S. 1990. Florida panther movements, social organization, and habitat utilization. Final Performance Report 7502. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Maehr, D.S. 1992. Florida panther distribution and conservation strategy. Final report, study no. 7572. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Tallahassee, Florida. Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, and J. C. Roof. 1991. Social ecology of Florida panthers. National Geographic Research & Exploration 7:414-431. Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, D. B. Shindle, O. L. Bass, and T. S. Hoctor. 2002. Florida panther dispersal and conservation. Biological Conservation 106:187-197. Marmontel, M. 1993. Age determination and population biology of the Florida manatee, Trichechus manatus latirostris. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.
Rev. 1 July 2011 69 093-87652
Marmontel, M., D.K. Odell, and J.E. Reynolds III. 1992. Reproductive biology of South American manatees. Pages 293-312 in W.C. Hamlett, ed. Reproductive biology of South American vertebrates. Springer-Verlag; New York, New York. Mazzotti, F.J. and Dunson, W.A. 1984. Adaptations of Crocodylus acutus and Alligator for life in saline water. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 79A:641-646. Mazzotti, F.J., Bohnsack, B., McMahon, M.P., and Wilcox, J.R. 1986. Field and laboratory observations on the effects of high temperature and salinity on hatchling Crocodylus acutus. Herpetologica. 42:191-196. Mazzotti, F.J. 1989. Factors affecting the nesting success of the American crocodile, Crocodylus acutus, in Florida Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 44:220-228. Mazzotti, F.J. 1999. The American Crocodile in Florida Bay. Estuaries 22:552-561. Mazzotti, F.J. and L.A. Brandt. 1994. Procedures manual for the crocodile monitoring program at Florida Power and Light Company’s Turkey Point Power Plant Site Homestead, Florida. University of Florida, Department of Wildlife and Range Sciences. McIvor, C. C. and Silverman, N. L. 2010. Modifications to the bottomless lift net for sampling nekton in tidal mangrove forests. Wetlands Ecology and Management. Wetlands Ecol Manage 18:627-625 (published on-line). Miami Dade County (MDC). February 1996. Dade County Manatee Protection Plan, DERM Technical Report 95-5, Metropolitan Dade County, Florida Department of Environmental Resources Management, Miami, Florida. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Species of Concern, Mangrove rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, May 11, 2009. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/mangroverivulus_detailed.pdf Ogden, J. 1978a. Status and nesting biology of the American crocodile, Crocodylus acutus (Reptilia: Crocodilidae) in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 12:183-196. Ogden, J. 1978b. American Crocodile. Pages 21-22 in R.W. McDiarmid ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol III: Amphibians and Reptiles. University Presses of Florida; Gainesville, FL. Ogden, J.C. 1990. Habitat management guidelines for the wood stork in the southeast region. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Atlanta, Georgia. Ogden, J.C. 1991. Nesting by wood storks in natural, altered, and artificial wetlands in central and northern Florida. Colonial Waterbirds, Volume 14: 39-45. Ogden, J.C., 1996a. Snowy Egret (Egretta thula). Pp 420-431 in J.A. Rodgers, Jr., H.W. Kale II, and H.T. Smith (eds.), 1996. Volume V, Birds, Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. 688 pp. Ogden, J.C.(c), 1996. Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor). Pp 432-441 in J.A. Rodgers, Jr., H.W. Kale II, and H.T. Smith (eds.), 1996. Volume V, Birds, Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. 688 pp. Ogden, J.C., J.A. Kushlan, and J.T. Tilmant. 1978. The food habits and nesting success of wood storks in Everglades National Park in 1974. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resources Report No. 16. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American birds, Volume 1, Loons through Flamingos. Yale University Press; New Haven, Connecticut.
Rev. 1 July 2011 70 093-87652
Powell, J.A. and G.B. Rathbun. 1984. Distribution and abundance of manatees along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gulf Science 7(1): 1-28. Rathbun, G. B., J. P Reid, and G. Carowan. 1990. Distribution and movement patterns of manatees (Trichechus manatus) in northwestern peninsular Florida. State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Marine Research Publications, no. 48; St. Petersburg, Florida. Reed, D.F., Woodward, T.N., and Pojar, T.M. 1975. Behavioral response of mule deer to a highway underpass. J. Wildlife Management 39:361-367. Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89-99. Rodgers, J.A., Jr., S.T. Schwikert, and A.Shapiro-Wenner. 1996. Nesting habitat of wood storks in north and central Florida, USA. Colonial Waterbirds 19:1-21. Roelke, M.E. 1990. Florida panther biomedical investigation. Final Report. Endangered species project E-I II – E-6, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Gainesville, Florida, 178pp. Roelke, M.E., and C.M. Glass. 1992. Florida panther biomedical investigation. Annual performance report, endangered species project E-1 11-E-7 7506. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Shindle, D., D. Land, K. Charlton, and R. McBride. 2000. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual Report 7500. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Smith, A.T. 1980. An Environmental Study of Everglades Mink (Mustela vison). South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Contract Number CX528081922. Smith, T. R., and O. L. Bass, Jr. 1994. Landscape, white-tailed deer, and the distribution of Florida panthers in the Everglades. Pages 693-708 in S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (eds). Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. Delray Beach, FL. Singer, F.J., and J.L. Doherty. 1985. Managing mountain goats at a highway crossing. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:469-477. Steiner, T. M., O. L. Bass, and J. A. Kushlan. 1983. Status of the eastern indigo snake in southern Florida National Parks and vicinity. South Florida Research Center Report SFRC-83/01, Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL. Sykes, Jr., P. W. 1978. Endangered Florida Everglade Kite. Pages 4-7 in Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. 2 (Kale II, H. W., Ed.) Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Sykes, Jr., P. W. 1979. Status of the Everglade Kite in Florida-1968-1978. Wilson Bull. 91:495-511. Sykes, Jr., P. W. 1983. Recent population trends of the Everglade Snail Kite in Florida and its relationship to water levels. Journal of Field Ornithol. 54:237-246. Sykes, Jr., P. W. 1987. Snail Kite nesting ecology in Florida. Fla. Field Nat. 15:57-84. Sykes, P.W., Jr., J.A. Rodgers Jr., and R.E. Bennets. 1995. Snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) in A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The birds of North America, Number 171, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists Union; Washington D.C. Taylor, D. S. 1999. Rivulus marmoratus status review: consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act. National Marine Fisheries Service. Final Report. 46 p.
Rev. 1 July 2011 71 093-87652
Taylor, D. S., Turner, B. J., Davis, W. P., and Chapman, B. B. 2008 . A novel terrestrial fish habitat inside emergent logs. American Naturalist 171(2):263-266. Tucker, W.A., Mazzotti, F.J., Zillioux, E., and Shortelle, A.B. 2004. Assessment of American crocodile populations of southern Florida: trends in population and reproduction rates. In preparation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Habitat management guidelines for the wood stork in the Southeast region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 9pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Florida manatee recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. May 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Standard Local Operation Procedures (SLOPES) for Section 404 Permits - Florida Panther. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, FL. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Species Conservation Guidelines South Florida, Eastern Indigo Snake, Draft May 25, 2004. South Florida Ecological Services Office. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/Eastern_Indigo_Snake_Conservation_Guidelines.p df U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) Species Account – Updated August, 2005. http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/Wood-stork-2005.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Florida panther effect determination key. Letter dated February 19, 2007, from Paul Souza, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, FL, to David S. Hobbie, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Florida Panther Recovery Plan (3rd Revision). http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/20081022%20Florida%20Panther%20Recovery%2 0Plan%20-%203rd%20Revision.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Federally Listed and Candidate Species in Miami-Dade County, Florida – Updated June 9, 2010. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/Miami- Dade%20County3.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species Profile for the Florida Panther. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A008 Wilcox, J.R. and Mazzotti, F.J. 1990. Site Management Program for the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) at the Florida Power and Light Company Turkey Point Power Plant Site. Zambrano, R. and T.N. Warraich. 2010. Statewide nesting seabird and shorebird survey in Florida: Ground and roof. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, FL. 10 pp.
Rev. 1
FIGURES
! SW 79TH AV
SW 85TH AV SW 200TH ST ! AREA MAP
CARIBBEAN BD
SW 117THAV SW 122ND AV
SW 127THAV SW 211TH ST SW AV 87TH !
SW 216TH ST SW 220TH! ST OLD CUTLER CUTLERRD BAY Goulds BAILES RD
SW 232ND ST SW 232ND ST SW 147THAV S DIXIE HY
SW 152ND AV SW 240TH ST
³ ! SW 162ND AV
SW 248TH ST/COCONUT PALM DR. SW 122ND AV SW 112THAV SW 127THAV SW 256TH ST SW 256TH ST SR 821 ET DADE
SW 264TH ST ^_
SW 145TH !AV SW 134THAV SW 268TH ST SW 107THAV
SW 157THAV ^_
SW 280TH ST
SW 288TH ST SW 132ND AV OLD DIXIE HY Leisure City HOMESTEAD AIR SW 296TH ST ! RESERVE BASE
SW 304TH ST SW 137THAVE/TALLAHASSEE RD. SW 312TH ST/CAMPBELL DR.
SW 320TH ST
SW 328TH ST/NORTH CANAL DR.
SW AV 117TH SW SW 162NDAV HOMESTEAD SE 24TH ST SW 344TH ST/PALM DR. Turkey Point FLORIDA CITY Units 6 & 7
ISLANDIA UNINCORPORATED MIAMI-DADE ^_ West Arsenicker Key
Arsenicker Key
OLD CARD SOUND RD Long Arsenicker Key Industrial Wastewater Facility
East
S DIXIE HY Arsenicker Key
12,000 0
Feet LEGEND ^_ Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 PROJECT Turkey Point Plant Property TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 Municipal Boundaries PROJECT
TITLE
LOCATION OF TURKEY POINT PLANT
REFERENCES FILE No. 08387584_P001 1. Local City Boundaries, Municipal Boundaries, Major Roads, Miami-Dade County GIS, REV. 1 FIGURE 2006. 1 PLOT DATE 7/18/2011 LEGEND Turkey Point ^Units 6 & 7 Turkey Point Plant Property ³ Everglades Mitigation Bank
Turkey Point ^ Units 6 & 7
REFERENCES
8,000 4,000 0
Feet
PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE UNITS 6 & 7 SITE LOCATION AND EVERGLADES MITIGATION BANK
FILE No. 08387584_P002 FIGURE REV. 1 2 PLOT DATE 7/18/2011 Unit 5
Units 1 and 2 Discharge To Canals Intake From Canals ³ Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site Units 3 and 4
L-31E Canal Grand Canal
Interceptor Ditch Canal Flow
Return
Model Lands Canal (C-107) Industrial Wastewater Facility
Collector
Sea Dade Canal
5,400 0
Feet LEGEND Canals
Turkey Point Plant Property PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE TURKEY POINT COOLING CANALS/ INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER FACILITY
REFERENCES FILE No. 08387584_P003 1. Imagery, Miami-Dade County, 2007. REV. 0 FIGURE 3 PLOT DATE 7/18/2011 ³
LEGEND 4.5 2.25 0 Northern Boundary of Designated Critical Habitat for American Crocodile Miles Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site
PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE AMERICAN CROCODILE DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT BOUNDARY
REFERENCES FILE No. 08387584_P004 FIGURE 1. Topographic Image, USGS, 2001. REV. 1 2. American Crocodile Boundary, USFWS, 2005 4 PLOT DATE 7/18/2011 ³
900 0 LEGEND Feet Proposed Fence Line Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Plant Area Proposed Water Line Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site PROJECT Proposed Parking Proposed Storage Areas TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 Roads Proposed Parking Area PROJECT
Substation Areas TITLE Bridges UNITS 6 & 7 AERIAL PLOT PLAN
FILE No. 08387584_P005 REFERENCES FIGURE 1. Imagery, Miami-Dade County, 2007. REV. 1
PLOT DATE 7/18/2011 5 Heavy Haul Road
Equipment Barge Unloading Area
³ Turning Basin
FPL Reclaimed Water Treatment Facility Radial Collector Well Laydown Area
Reclaimed Water Delivery Pipeline FPL Reclaimed Water Radial Collector Well Area Treatment Facility Alternate Location
Reclaimed Water Delivery Pipeline Alternate Location
Laydown Area
Western Laydown Area
Nuclear Administration Building/Training Building/Parking Area Heavy Haul Road
Radial Collector Well Delivery Pipeline
Western Laydown Area
Spoils Area A Spoils Area C
***Match Line***
1,500 750 0 1,500 Feet
LEGEND Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site Associated Non-Linear Facilities 1 Construction Areas / Facilities Spoil Areas 2 REFERENCES 1. Imagery, Miami-Dade County, 2007. E.1 7/18/2011 DATE PLOT REV. No. FILE FIGURE FIGURE TITLE PROJECT 08387584_P006 6 ASSOCIATED NON-LINEAR FACILITIES, TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 CONSTRUCTION AREAS, SPOIL AREAS, PROJECT SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES Sheet 1 of 2 ³ ***Match Line***
Spoils Area A Spoils Area C
Spoils Area B Spoils Area B
1,500 750 0 1,500 Feet
LEGEND Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site Associated Non-Linear Facilities 1 Construction Areas / Facilities Spoil Areas 2 REFERENCES 1. Imagery, Miami-Dade County, 2007. E.1 7/18/2011 DATE PLOT REV. No. FILE FIGURE FIGURE TITLE PROJECT 08387584_P006 6 ASSOCIATED NON-LINEAR FACILITIES, TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 CONSTRUCTION AREAS, SPOIL AREAS, PROJECT SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES Sheet 2 of 2 V
A
D
N
2
MIAMI-DADE W COUNTY N
X V 6 E SR 8 2 A
D S R N TE I TA L S L
O
C Y
E H
V 96TH ST IE
A
X
E U I Pennsuco S D H V 2
T A 7 W 7 H E
Y 2
E V .! A
M
E H
M e d l e y Y O
W
V T
A R N 6 E A
K V W H
A S
T
S 7
S 0
E N 1
I R
L P W
L X
N O E
Y C O C D o r a l T JULIA TUTTLE .! T NW 36TH ST E
Y
Levee M
H
L D
1 A
B E 5
P E NW 7TH ST M i a m i S D 9 K A
U I
I D
P
N R
U .! T
TAMIAMI TR
S ' R Miami
E
A C o r a l R R IC
V D K X I E
A G a b l e s N R
S B R A
R C C
O K
H BIRD RD E L C
T R
F 7 E 7 C Everglades F
1 Y
National W S o u t h S M i a m i Park 1 4 S 7 U 8 R S SW 88th ST
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY P i n e - C r e s t .! Atlantic CORAL REEF DR E Davis V Ocean
A
P a l m e t t o E B a y
M
O R
R R K X S C SW 200th ST
1 S U Location Map
Biscayne E K I P Bay N R U T 'S A ID R O Biscayne D L
R F
R National
E
W H o m e s t e a d 0 125 250
O Park
T F l o r i d a C i t y .! Miles .! Turkey Point Clear Sky INGRAHAM HY
LEGEND 0 4 8 .! FPL Substation Potable Water Pipeline Corridor Miles Roadway Improvement Corridors East Preferred
d Turkey Point Plant Property x Transmission Corridor
m
. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site PROJECT s West Preferred
e t Interstate Highway u TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 o Transmission Corridor
R US Highway _ PROJECT
s
d Access Corridors
a Major Road o Reclaimed Water TITLE R Railroad
_
r
e Pipeline Corridor LINEAR FACILITIES PROPOSED t Municipalities
a
W
\ FOR CERTIFICATION
9
8
4
0
8
0 \ FILE No. 090531-0100
d
a
c REFERENCES
a
\ FIGURE : US Census, 2000; FDOT, 2005; Miami-Dade County, 2008. REV. 0
M
:
e
l
i 7 PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 F ³ LEGEND 641 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Plant Area 641 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site Associated Non-Linear Facilities 612 Land Use / Land Cover 617 612 437 - AUSTRALIAN PINE 617 Equipment Barge Unloading Area 510 - CANAL 744 511 - DITCHES FPL Reclaimed Water 510 531 - OPEN WATER Treatment Facility 831 534 - RESERVOIRS < 10 ACRES 641 Radial Collector 542 - EMBAYMENTS NOT OPENING DIRECTLY INTO THE ATLANTIC OCEAN Well Area 612 - MANGROVE SWAMPS 612 / 618 - MANGROVE SWAMPS / WILLOW AND ELDERBERRY 6411 612 ³ 612-A - MANGROVE HEADS 612 612 612-B - DWARF MANGROVES 619-AP 743 617 - MIXED WETLAND HARDWOODS 612-B 814 510 437 612-B 617-P - MIXED WETLAND HARDWOODS-PLANTED 534 641 619-AP - EXOTIC WETLAND HARDWOODS / AUSTRALIAN PINE 437 814 744 510 534 612 641 - FRESHWATER MARSHES 612-B 6411 612-B 534 511 6411 - MARSH SAWGRASS 534 641 534 650 - NON-VEGETATED MUD FLAT 437 743 534 534 612-B 612-B 617-P 612-B 740 - DISTURBED LANDS 619-AP 534 534 617-P 612-B 534 831 743 - UPLAND SPOIL AREAS 534 534 534 814 743-WET - WETLAND SPOIL AREAS 511 814 612-B 534 510 534 831 511 612-B 744 - FILL AREAS / ROADWAYS 612-B 437 534 534 831 831 Nuclear Administration Building/ 814 - ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 511 740 740 511 Training Building/Parking Area 831 - ELECTRIC POWER FACILITIES 740 510
FPL Reclaimed Water 744 612-B Treatment Facility Alternate Location 612 612 743 531 612 740 Treated Reclaimed Water 612 / 618 Delivery Pipelines 612-B 744 510 Alternate Location 510 617 Radial Collector Well 612-A Delivery Pipelines 510 743 743 743 Treated Reclaimed Water 744 612-A Delivery Pipelines 612-A
743 743 743 REFERENCES 743 743 612-A 743 612-A 612-A 612-A 1. Imagery, Miami-Dade County, 2007. 743 743 743 743 743 2. Land Use, SFWMD & Golder Associates Inc., 2004 / 2009 531 511 510 743 743-WET 612-A 650 612-A
612-A 743 950 475 0 612-B 743 Feet
743
612-A PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 612-A 612-A PROJECT 511 743-WET TITLE 743-WET 511 612-A 650 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES & LAND USE MAP 612-A ASSOCIATED NON-LINEAR FACILITIES 612-A 510 743 510 650 743 FILE No. 08387584_P007 744 FIGURE 743 743 REV. 1 743 743 743 743 743 743 743 743 743 612 743 743 743 8 743 743 743 7/19/2011 542 PLOT DATE LAKE ORANGE SUMTER
PASCO
§¨¦4 OSCEOLA BREVARD PINELLAS POLK HILLSBOROUGH
INDIAN RIVER ³
HARDEE MANATEE OKEECHOBEE ST. LUCIE HIGHLANDS
SARASOTA DE SOTO MARTIN
GLADES
CHARLOTTE
§¨¦95 PALM BEACH
HENDRY LEE
75 BROWARD §¨¦ COLLIER
MONROE DADE
35 0
LEGEND Miles West Indian Manatee Critical Habitat
PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE WEST INDIAN MANATEE CRITICAL HABITAT
FILE No. 08387584_P016 REFERENCES FIGURE 1. West Indian Manatee Critical Habitat, USFish and Wildlife Service, 2003. REV. 1
PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 9 LAKE ORANGE SUMTER
PASCO
§¨¦4 OSCEOLA BREVARD PINELLAS POLK HILLSBOROUGH
INDIAN RIVER ³
HARDEE MANATEE OKEECHOBEE ST. LUCIE HIGHLANDS
SARASOTA DE SOTO MARTIN
GLADES
CHARLOTTE
§¨¦95 PALM BEACH
HENDRY LEE
75 BROWARD §¨¦ COLLIER
MONROE DADE
35 0
LEGEND Miles West Indian Manatee Consultation Area
PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE WEST INDIAN MANATEE CONSULTATION AREA
FILE No. 08387584_P017 REFERENCES FIGURE 1. West Indian Manatee Consultation Area, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003. REV. 1
PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 10 LAKE ORANGE SUMTER
PASCO
§¨¦4 OSCEOLA BREVARD PINELLAS POLK HILLSBOROUGH
INDIAN RIVER ³
HARDEE MANATEE OKEECHOBEE ST. LUCIE HIGHLANDS
SARASOTA DE SOTO MARTIN
GLADES
CHARLOTTE
§¨¦95 PALM BEACH
HENDRY LEE
75 BROWARD §¨¦ COLLIER
MONROE DADE
35 0
LEGEND Miles Everglades Snail Kite Critical Habitat
PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE EVERGLADES SNAIL KITE CRITICAL HABITAT
FILE No. 08387584_P018 REFERENCES FIGURE 1. Everglades Snail Kite, South Florida Service Area, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003. REV. 1
PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 11 ³
9®[
8®[ 6 ®[ ®[®[ 4 ®[ 5 7
®[3
2 ®[®[ 1
Number Name 1 620018 Madeira 2 Lower Taylor Slough 3 Grossman Ridge West 4 620131 5 Tamiami West (UF Estimated) 0 3.5 7 14 6 Tamiami East 2 Miles 7 Tamiami East1 8 3B Mud East 9 Unknown
LEGEND REFERENCES 1. Wood Stork Colonies, Wood Stork CFA's, ECT, 2010. Florida Wood Stork Core Foraging Areas (CFA) 2. East Preferred Corridor, West Preferred Corridor, West Transmission Access Corridors, ®[ Florida Wood Stork Colonies with CFA Intersecting Proposed Corridor East Preferred Corridor West Preferred Corridor West Transmission Access Corridors E.1 7/19/2011 DATE PLOT REV. No. FILE FIGURE FIGURE TITLE PROJECT LOCATION OF WOOD 08387584_P012 12 STORK COLONIES WITH TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 THEIR CFA INTERSECTING PROJECT FPL PROPOSED WEST CORRIDOR Path: M:\acad\090531\WoodStorks_Microtowers_rev(pandion)_noTowers0711.mxd
Critical Energy Infrastructure Information: Due to the sensitive nature of site-specific electrical infrastructure location information and confidentiality requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, these maps should not be posted on internet sites or disseminated beyond those persons with an interest in the siting of the transmission lines discussed in this application. ³
.! 620314 Levee (3B-Mud East)
L-30
(Tamiami East 2)
US 41 / Tamiami Trail
620312 620313 (Tamiami East 1) (Tamiami West)
L-31N
Krome Ave Krome
0 0.5 1
Miles
LEGEND REFERENCES Overhead Distribution Line Wood Stork Nesting Colony West Preferred Corridor Sources: FWC, 2009; NRCS, 2007; SFWMD, 2003, 2009, 2010; FPL, 500-kV Existing FPL Transmission Line 1000' From Colony Boundary Access Corridor 2009; Miami-Dade County, 2008, 2009; FCC, 2010; ECT, 2010. 230-kV Existing FPL Transmission Line 2500' From Colony Boundary XXX FWC Colony Number FILE No. FILE E.0 06/25/2010 DATE PLOT REV. TITLE PROJECT FIGURE FIGURE LOCATION OF 13
090531-0100 TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT: WOOD STORK COLONIES TRANSMISSION LINES SUMTER LAKE ORANGE
PASCO
¨¦§4 OSCEOLA BREVARD PINELLAS
POLK HILLSBOROUGH
INDIAN RIVER ³
HARDEE MANATEE OKEECHOBEE ST. LUCIE HIGHLANDS
SARASOTA DE SOTO MARTIN
GLADES
CHARLOTTE
95 PALM BEACH ¨¦§
HENDRY LEE
75 BROWARD ¨¦§COLLIER
MONROE DADE
35 0 LEGEND Miles Florida Panther Consultation Area South
PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE
FLORIDA PANTHER CONSULTATION AREA
FILE No. 08387584_P009 REFERENCES FIGURE 1. Panther Consultation Area South, USFWS, 2007 REV. 1
PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 14 ³
(!
! ! ( ( (!(! (! (! (!
(! (! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ((!( (!(! ( (! (! (! (! (! (! !!(! ! ! ! (! (! ((( ( (! (! ( (! ( (! (! ! ! !! (!(! (! ! ! ! !( ( ! ((! ! ( (! ( ! ( ( ( ( ( (! (! ( (! (! (! (!(! ! (! ! ! ( ( ( (! !( (! ! (! (! ( ( ! (!(! ( (! ! ! (!( ( ! ! ( ( (! (! ! ! ( ( (!(! !(!! (! (! (! (! ! ( ( (! (! (!(! (! ( (! !!((! ! !(! (!!( (! ! (( !( ! (( ( ( (!(! ( ! (! (! ! (! ( (! (!(! ( (! (! (! (! ! ( ! (! (! (! ( (! (!! (! (! ! (! ! ! ( (! (! ( ( (! ( (! (! (!(! (!(! ! ! ( (! (! ( (! (! (! (! (! !(! ! (! (! ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( (! (! ( ( (! (! (! (! (! (! ! (! (! !! (! ! ( (( ( (! (! (! (! (! ! ! ! ( ( (! ( (! ! ! ! ( ( (! ( (! (! (! (! ! (! (
(! (! (!(!
1.5 0
Miles LEGEND (! Cat Number 21 (1987 - 1988) Turkey Point Plant Property PROJECT Access Roadway Improvements 5-Mile Buffer TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 Access Roadway Improvements PROJECT Florida Panther Consultation Area South TITLE PANTHER FP21 RADIO TELEMETRY DATA REFERENCES FILE No. 08387584_P019 1. Panther FP21, FWC, ENP, BCNP, 1981-2008 REV. 1 FIGURE 2. Panther Consultation Area Sounth, USFWS, 2007 3. Turkey Point Plant Property, FPL, 2008 15 PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 ! ! ³ ! !
!!!! !! ! !!! !! ! !!!! ! !! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!!!
! !
!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! ! !!
! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !
!!
4,500 0 LEGEND Feet ! Crocodile Nesting Sites
Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 Turkey Point Plant Property PROJECT
TITLE CROCODILE NEST LOCATIONS 1978 - 2009
REFERENCES FILE No. 08387584_P010 1. Crocodile Nest Locations, FPL 1978-2009, Turkey Point Plant Annual Crocodile Report REV. 0 FIGURE Permit # TE092945-1. PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 16 ³
!
! !
!
!
!!
! !
! !!
!
4,500 0
Feet LEGEND ! Crocodile Nesting Sites
Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 Turkey Point Plant Property PROJECT
TITLE CROCODILE NEST LOCATIONS 2010
REFERENCES FILE No. 09387584_P011 1. Crocodile Nest Locations, FPL 2010, Turkey Point Plant Annual Crocodile Report REV. 1 FIGURE Permit # TE092945-1. PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 17 PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE CROCODILE SANCTUARY BOUNDARY MARKER
FILE No. 08387584_P020
REV. 1 FIGURE
PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 18 ³
Underpass 2 (at T5)
Underpass 3 Underpass 1 (at T3)
LEGEND 500 250 0 Proposed Crocodile Underpasses (Approximate Locations) Feet
PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE CONCEPTUAL CROCODILE ACCESS ROAD UNDERPASS LOCATIONS
REFERENCES FILE No. 08387584_P012
1. Imagery, ESRI Online, 2011 REV. 1 FIGURE 19 PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 G:\PROJECTS\FPL\Turkey_Point\083_87584_FPL_TKY_PT_6_and_7\P_T&E_Mgmt_Plan\Rev1_July_2011_Submittal\MapDocuments\08387584_P021_Rev1_ConceptualCrocUnderpass.mxd
OVERHEAD VIEW
Wing Wall Barriers FRONT VIEW Culvert
Wing Wall Barriers
Fence
Culvert
PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE CONCEPTUAL CROCODILE Fence ACCESS ROAD UNDERPASS
FILE No. 08387584_P021
REV. 1 FIGURE 20 PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 INSET A ³
L-31E CANAL
INTERCEPTOR DITCH
MODEL LANDS CANAL (C-107) INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER FACILITY
SEA DADE CANAL
Inset A
CARD SOUND ROAD CANAL
LEGEND REFERENCES Sea Dade Canal 1. Imagery, Miami-Dade County, 2007. Crocodile Sanctuary
0 1,000 2,000 Feet E.1 7/19/2011 DATE PLOT REV. No. FILE FIGURE FIGURE TITLE PROJECT 08387584_P013 21 SEA DADE CANAL TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 CROCODILE SANCTUARY PROJECT AERIAL MAP ³
617 534 617 6411
542 542
814
6411 831 612-B 617 534
LEGEND Nesting Substrate 150 0 Post Restoration Land Use Feet 534 - Low Salinity Ponds
542 - Saline Lagoon PROJECT 612-B - Dwarf Mangroves TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 617 - Mixed Wetland Hardwoods PROJECT 6411 - Sawgrass TITLE 814 - Roads and Highways 831 - Electrical Power Facilities SEA DADE CANAL CROCODILE SANCTUARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
FILE No. 08387584_P014 REFERENCES REV. 1 FIGURE 1. Aerial Imagery, FDOT, 2007. 2. Sea Dade Canal Crocodile Sanctuary, Nesting Substrate, Golder Associates Inc., 22 2011. PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 July 2011 0938-7652
Figure 23 Typical Cross-Section SW 359th Street with Wildlife Fencing and Culverts FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project
July 2011 0938-7652
Figure 24 FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project
July 2011 0938-7652
Figure 25 Typical SW 359th Street Overhead View -- Wildlife Underpass Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project
09387652
SW 328TH ST SW 117TH AVE (North) ³ SW 344TH ST SW 344TH ST / PALM DRIVE SW 117TH AVE (South)
Box Culvert SW 359TH AVE (East) SW 137TH AVE ")
SW 359TH (West) ³
Legend
") Box Culvert SW 117THAV Roadway Improvement Areas Major Roads Streets Turkey Point Plant Property
Box Culvert
)" SW 359TH ST
LEGEND
)" Box Culvert 800 0 Feet
PROJECT TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT
TITLE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR WILDLIFE UNDERPASS
FILE No. 08387584_P015 REFERENCES FIGURE 1. Wildlife Underpass Proposed Location, Golder Associates Inc., 2011. REV. 1
PLOT DATE 7/19/2011 26
APPENDIX A
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN KNOWN TO OCCUR IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
July 2011 0938-7652
Appendix A THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN KNOWN TO OCCUR IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status
Plants Acrostichum aureum Golden Leather Fern N T Adiantum melanoleucum Fragrant Maidenhair Fern N E Adiantum tenerum Brittle Maidenhair Fern N E Aeschynomene pratensis Meadow Jointvetch N E Aletris bracteata Bracted Colic-root N E Alvaradoa amorphoides Everglades Leaf Lace N E Amorpha herbacea var. crenulata Crenulate Lead-plant E E Anemia wrightii Wright's Anemia N E Argusia gnaphalodes Sea Lavender N E Argythamnia blodgettii Blodgett's Wild-mercury C E Aristolochia pentandra Marsh's Dutchman's Pipe N E Asplenium dentatum American Toothed Spleenwort N E Asplenium serratum American Bird's Nest Fern N E Asplenium verecundum Modest Spleenwort N E Basiphyllaea corallicola Rockland Orchid N E Beloglottis costaricensis Costa Rican Ladies'-tresses N E Bourreria cassinifolia Smooth Strongbark N E Brickellia mosieri Florida Brickell-bush C E Byrsonima lucida Locustberry N T Calyptranthes zuzygium Myrtle-of-the-river N E Catopsis berteroniana Powdery Catopsis N E Catopsis floribunda Many-flowered Catopsis N E Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. adhaerens Hairy Deltoid Spurge E E Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea Deltoid Spurge E E Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum Pinelands Spurge C E Chamaesyce garberi Garber's Spurge T E Chamaesyce porteriana Porter's Broad-leaved Spurge N E Coccothrinax argentata Silver Palm N T Colubrina cubensis var. floridana Cuban Snake-bark N E Crossopetalum ilicifolium Christmas Berry N T Crossopetalum rhacoma Rhacoma N T Ctenitis sloanei Florida Tree Fern N E Cyclopogon elatus Tall Neottia N E Cyrtopodium punctatum Cowhorn Orchid N E Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana Florida Prairie Clover C E Digitaria pauciflora Few-flowered Fingergrass C E Drypetes diversifolia Milkbark N E Eltroplectris calcarata Spurred Neottia N E Encyclia boothiana var. erythronioides Dollar Orchid N E Encyclia cochleata var. triandra Clamshell Orchid N E Epidendrum nocturnum Night-scented Orchid N E Ernodea cokeri Coker's Beach Creeper N E Eugenia confusa Tropical Ironwood N E Eugenia rhombea Red Stopper N E Eupatorium villosum Villose Fennel N E Euphorbia pinetorum Rockland Painted-leaf N E Exostema caribaeum Caribbean Princewood N E Galactia smallii Small's Milk Pea E E Galeandra bicarinata Two-keeled Helmet Orchid N E
Page 1 of 4 July 2011 0938-7652
Appendix A THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN KNOWN TO OCCUR IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status
Glandularia maritima Coastal Vervain N E Govenia floridana Sheathing Govenia N E Guaiacum sanctum Lignum-vitae N E Guzmania monostachia Fakahatchee Guzmania N E Halophila johnsonii Johnson's Seagrass T N Harrisia simpsonii Simpson's Prickly Apple N E Hippomane mancinella Manchineel N E Hypelate trifoliata White Ironwood N E Ilex krugiana Krug's Holly N T Ipomoea microdactyla Wild Potato Morning Glory N E Ipomoea tenuissima Rocklands Morning Glory N E Jacquemontia curtissii Pineland Jacquemontia N T Jacquemontia pentanthos Skyblue Clustervine N E Jacquemontia reclinata Beach Jacquemontia E E Jacquinia keyensis Joewood N T Lantana canescens Small-headed Lantana N E Lantana depressa var. depressa Florida Lantana N E Lantana depressa var. floridana Atlantic Coast Florida Lantana N E Leiphaimos parasitica Ghost Plant N E Licaria triandra Gulf Licaria N E Linum arenicola Sand Flax C E Linum carteri var. carteri Carter's Small-flowered Flax C E Linum carteri var. smallii Small's flax N E Lomariopsis kunzeana Holly Vine Fern N E Microgramma heterophylla Climbing Vine Fern N E Odontosoria clavata Wedgelet Fern N E Okenia hypogaea Burrowing Four-o'clock N E Oncidium floridanum Florida Dancinglady Orchid N E Ophioglossum palmatum Hand Fern N E Opuntia corallicola Florida Semaphore Cactus C E Passiflora multiflora White Passionflower N E Passiflora pallens Pale Passionflower N E Passiflora sexflora Everglades Key Passion-flower N E Pavonia paludicola Mangrove Mallow N E Peperomia humilis Low Peperomia N E Peperomia obtusifolia Blunt-leaved Peperomia N E Phoradendron rubrum Mahogany Mistletoe N E Picramnia pentandra Bitter Bush N E Polygala smallii Tiny Polygala E E Polyrrhiza lindenii Ghost Orchid N E Prescotia oligantha Small-flowered Prescotia N E Prunus myrtifolia West Indian Cherry N T Pseudophoenix sargentii Florida Cherry-palm N E Psidium longipes Mangrove Berry N T Psychotria ligustrifolia Bahama Wild Coffee N E Pteris bahamensis Bahama Brake N T Pteroglossaspis ecristata Giant Orchid N T Roystonea elata Florida Royal Palm N E Sachsia polycephala Bahama Sachsia N T Sacoila lanceolata var. paludicola Fahkahatchee Ladies'-tresses N T
Page 2 of 4 July 2011 0938-7652
Appendix A THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN KNOWN TO OCCUR IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status
Schaefferia frutescens Yellowwood N E Schizaea pennula Ray Fern N E Scutellaria havanensis Havana Skullcap N E Selaginella eatonii Eaton's Spike Moss N E Spiranthes polyantha Green Ladies'-tresses N E Spiranthes torta Southern Ladies'-tresses N E Stylosanthes calcicola Pineland Pencil Flower N E Swietenia mahagoni West Indies Mahogany N T Tectaria fimbriata Least Halberd Fern N E Tephrosia angustissima var. corallicola Rockland Hoary-pea N E Tephrosia angustissima var. curtissii Coastal Hoary-pea N E Thelypteris reptans Creeping Maiden Fern N E Thelypteris sclerophylla Stiff-leaved Maiden Fern N E Thelypteris serrata Toothed Maiden Fern N E Thrinax morrisii Brittle Thatch Palm N E Thrinax radiata Florida Thatch Palm N E Tillandsia flexuosa Banded Wild-pine N T Tragia saxicola Pineland Noseburn N T Trema lamarckianum Lamarck's Trema N E Trichomanes krausii Kraus' Bristle Fern N E Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum Florida Filmy Fern N E Tripsacum floridanum Florida Gama Grass N T Tropidia polystachya Young-palm Orchid N E Vallesia antillana Pearl Berry N E Vanilla barbellata Worm-vine Orchid N E Vanilla inodora Fuch's Vanilla N E Vanilla phaeantha Leafy Vanilla N E Zanthoxylum coriaceum Biscayne Prickly Ash N E Zephyranthes simpsonii Redmargin Zephyrlilly N T
Gastropods Orthalicus reses reses Stock Island Tree Snail T E
Fish Rivulus marmoratus Mangrove Rivulus C SSC
Reptiles Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator T (SA) SSC Caretta caretta Loggerhead T T Chelonia mydas Green Turtle E E Crocodylus acutus American Crocodile T E Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback E E Drymarchon couperi Eastern Indigo Snake T T Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill E E Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise N T Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's Ridley E E Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida Pine Snake N SSC Tantilla oolitica Rim Rock Crowned Snake N T
Birds
Page 3 of 4 July 2011 0938-7652
Appendix A THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN KNOWN TO OCCUR IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status
Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow E E Aramus guarauna Limpkin N SSC Athene cunicularia floridana Florida Burrowing Owl N SSC Charadrius melodus Piping Plover T T Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron N SSC Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret N SSC Egretta thula Snowy Egret N SSC Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron N SSC Eudocimus albus White Ibis N SSC Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American Kestrel N T Grus canadensis pratensis Florida Sandhill Crane N T Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher N SSC Mycteria americana Wood Stork E E Patagioenas leucocephala White-crowned Pigeon N T Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican N SSC Platalea ajaja Roseate Spoonbill N SSC Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Snail Kite E E Rynchops niger Black Skimmer N SSC Sterna antillarum Least Tern N T
Mammals Eumops floridanus Florida Bonneted Bat C T Mustela vison evergladensis Everglades Mink N T Podomys floridanus Florida Mouse N SSC Puma concolor coryi Florida Panther E E Trichechus manatus latirostris Florida manatee E E Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Black Bear N T
Notes: N = Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing C = Candidate species for which federal listing agencies have sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposing to list as Endangered or Threatened SSC = Species of Special Concern T = Threatened T (SA) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance to the American crocodile E = Endangered
Source: Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 2010.
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT B
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SPECIAL PURPOSE PERMITS #WX06467a AND #TE092945-2
ATTACHMENT C
STANDARD MANATEE CONDITIONS FOR IN-WATER WORK
June 2009 - 6 - 0838-7584
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT UNITS 6 & 7 PROJECT MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN
STANDARD MANATEE CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS FOR IN-WATER WORK WITHIN BARGE TURNING BASIN AND ENTRANCE CHANNEL AT TURKEY POINT PLANT
All contractors shall comply with the following manatee protection conditions: a. Contractor supervisors shall instruct all personnel associated with in-water work within the barge turning basin and entrance channel of the Turkey Point Plant of the potential presence of manatees and the need to avoid manatees. b. Contractor supervisors shall ensure that a log is maintained detailing sightings, collisions, or injuries to manatees should they occur during the project. All such incidents shall be reported immediately to FPL and FPL contractor designee. Following project completion, a report summarizing incidents and sightings will be prepared by the construction contractor and shall be submitted to the FPL Environmental Services Department, 700 Universe Blvd., Juno Beach, FL 33408. c. Contractor supervisors shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees, which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. The Florida Manatee is listed as an Endangered Species and is protected by Federal and State Law. Criminal penalties under the Endangered Species Act can include up to 1-year imprisonment and/or a $50,000 fee. d. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission at 1-888-404-FWCC (1-888-404-3922) (24 hours). Collision and/or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (1-904-731-3336). FPL will make these notifications in cooperation with the contractor. e. All vessels used in the operation or in association with the in-water work shall have a dedicated observer on board responsible for identifying the presence of manatee(s). If a manatee is observed within 100 feet of the project area, the crew should be alerted that a manatee is in the area. Work can continue but at extreme caution. The manatee observer must be present during all in-water construction activities and will advise personnel to cease operation upon sighting a manatee within 50 feet of any in-water construction activity. The manatee observer should have polarized glasses to aid in observation. In addition, all construction personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of manatees. f. If manatee(s) are seen within the area of in-water work, all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to ensure protection of the manatee(s). These precautions shall include the immediate shutdown of equipment if necessary. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s) has departed to a safe distance (>50 feet) on its own volition. g. Crushing and interactions with the propellers of tugboats are two potential risks for manatees. Manatees have been known to go beneath vessels that are docked overnight. Before project activities resume each day, crews should bang on the sides of the vessel and allow ample time for the manatees to move a safe distance away. h. Movement of a work barge, other associated vessels, or any in-water work shall not be performed after sunset or before sunrise, when the possibility of spotting manatees is negligible. i. All vessels associated with in-water work associated with the barge turning basin or entrance channel shall operate at “no wake/idle” speeds at all times. All vessels will follow routes of deep water and stay in the channel whenever possible.
Rev. 0
ATTACHMENT D
ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO FLORIDA PANTHER HABITATS (BDA, 2009)
BDA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
2009-019-10.1
ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO FLORIDA PANTHER HABITATS
TURKEY POINT 6 & 7 PROJECT
Submitted to:
Ms. Florette Braun Florida Power & Light 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Phone: 561-691-7059
December 9, 2009
Submitted by:
Randy S. Kautz, B.S. Tom H. Logan, M.S., C.W.B. Senior Scientist Vice President
BREEDLOVE, DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
X 330 W. Canton Ave. ~ Winter Park, FL 32789 30 East Liberty St. ~ Brooksville, FL 34601 1167 Green Hill Trace ~ Tallahassee, FL 32317 Phone: 407-677-1882 ~ Fax: 407-657-7008 Phone: 352-799-9488 ~ Fax: 352-799-9588 Phone: 850-942-1631 ~ Fax: 850-942-9776
Estimated Impacts to Florida Panther Habitats
Turkey Point 6 & 7 Project
Introduction
The Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) Turkey Point plant comprises approximately 11,000 acres in unincorporated southeast Miami-Dade County, Florida. The existing plant consists of two 400-megawatt (MW) natural gas/oil steam electric generating units (Units 1 and 2); two 700-MW nuclear units (Units 3 and 4); and a 1,150-MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle unit (Unit 5). FPL is proposing to construct two new 1,100-MW nuclear units (Units 6 & 7) and supporting buildings, facilities, and equipment south of Units 3 and 4 within the cooling canals of the industrial wastewater facility. Proposed associated facilities include a nuclear administration building, a training building and parking area; an FPL reclaimed water treatment facility and reclaimed water pipelines; radial collector wells and delivery pipelines; an equipment barge unloading area; an FPL-owned fill source; transmission lines and system improvements within eastern and western Miami-Dade County; access roads and bridges; and potable water pipelines.
Portions of the proposed project also are within the Florida Panther Focus Area (PFA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2007) (Figure 1), an area known to have been occupied by or having the potential to be occupied by the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), a wide-ranging predator listed as endangered by the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Because the project is expected to result in impacts to wetlands of the United States (U.S.) under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the ACOE has agreed to seek formal consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended in 1973, to evaluate potential impacts to Florida panthers and/or their habitats for projects that require federal wetlands permits and are within the PFA (USFWS 2007).
The Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site and the transmission line corridor connecting the Clear Sky substation to the Davis and Miami substations in urban areas of Miami-Dade County are outside of the PFA (Figure 1). Therefore, construction of new electric generating units at the Site and installation of the Clear Sky- Davis-Miami transmission lines would not be expected to affect Florida panthers or their habitats. However, the proposed Units 6 & 7 project includes two components (i.e., a transmission line corridor and improvements to roads that provide access to the Site) that occur within the PFA, and consultation with the USFWS will be necessary to address potential effects on Florida panthers for those project components.
FPL is proposing to construct one 230-kV and two 500-kV transmission lines within a 330-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) from the Clear Sky substation to the Levee substation in northwest Miami-Dade County (Figure 1). The proposed transmission line corridor is approximately 43.60 miles in length, of which approximately 24.30 miles (56%) are in the PFA. The Clear Sky to Levee corridor includes two
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
1
alternative alignments. The secondary alternative would follow an existing FPL-owned ROW that includes a 7.42-mile segment through the Everglades National Park (ENP) expansion area and a 4.45-mile segment through the southeastern corner of Water Conservation Area 3B (WCA). However, activities are underway with federal and state agencies to obtain approval for a preferred corridor that would involve relocation of the ENP/WCA segments to an alignment immediately west of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) L-30/31-N canal.
The project also includes a proposal to improve transportation access to the Site by upgrading approximately 10.30 miles of existing roads connecting to the plant, of which 5.75 miles of the proposed road improvements are within the PFA. The proposed road improvements include (1) widening approximately 3.30 miles of existing two-lane paved roads to four lanes, and (2) upgrading approximately 7.00 miles of existing unpaved roads to either three- or four-lane paved roads. The roadway improvements serve to accommodate traffic during the construction of the new electrical generating units. Roadway improvements on publicly owned ROWs will be returned to pre-construction configuration, and any privately owned roadway will be returned to two-lane status upon completion of construction of Turkey Point Units 6 & 7.
USFWS has designed a methodology for evaluating potential permanent impacts to Florida panther habitats within the PFA. The methodology provides a means for assessing impacts to panther habitat in terms of Panther Habitat Units (PHU), which are calculated as the sum of the products of land cover scores multiplied by acreages of land cover types that are impacted by a project. The USFWS recommends mitigation at a ratio of 2.5:1 for impacts that occur anywhere within the PFA south of the Caloosahatchee River. Therefore, the amount of mitigation recommended is calculated by multiplying the PHUs in the impact area by 2.5. The same methodology is used to calculate the PHU values of prospective mitigation sites to determine whether the quantity of PHUs available for mitigation is sufficient to offset project impacts. However, the final amount of mitigation recommended may increase or decrease based on whether impact and mitigation sites are located within the PFA Primary or Secondary Zones. For example, mitigation requirements for impacts occurring in the Secondary Zone may be reduced by a factor of 0.69 if the mitigation site is located within the Primary Zone.
The objectives of these analyses were to estimate the potential loss of Florida panther habitat that may occur within the PFA, estimate mitigation requirements for the proposed facilities that occur within the PFA, review available data representing panther occurrence in the project vicinity, and assess panther habitat values and use of existing power line ROWs and other linear landscape features. The plans for the proposed transmission line corridor and road improvements are conceptual at this point in time and have yet to be finalized. These analyses provide an assessment of the extent of potential loss of panther habitat based on the conceptual design for the project to inform further discussions and site planning. USFWS methodology and updated land use/land cover data in GIS format were used to calculate the potential loss of panther habitat that may occur. The number of PHUs of mitigation that may be recommended for the project was estimated by applying appropriate mitigation ratios. Florida panther radio-telemetry, mortality and den records that are available for the vicinity of project components were reviewed. Florida panther use of existing transmission line ROWs and other linear landscape features in south Florida was evaluated using radio-telemetry records from 1981 through June 2009 and telemetry results from animals outfitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) collars. A literature review was conducted to assess the
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
2
value of dirt roads, jeep trails, canal levees, old railroad grades, etc., as movement corridors and sources of prey.
Analyses of Florida panther occurrence and habitat use in the vicinity of existing transmission lines and other linear features led to the conclusion that construction of a new transmission line and associated structures, fill pads, and unimproved transmission line access roads within the PFA would not result in long-term effects on Florida panthers and their habitats. Available data indicate that Florida panthers do not avoid transmission line ROWs, but rather panthers do occur on linear features that include transmission line ROWs at a greater frequency than random and may use them as movement pathways or to access prey. The benefits of transmission line ROWs to panther conservation cannot be quantified, and they are not quantified or represented by the USFWS methodology. Although we estimated the number of PHUs of mitigation that the USFWS may recommend if construction of the transmission line ROWs was viewed as a direct loss of panther habitat, we believe that no mitigation should be required since the project will not result in a loss of habitat, only a conversion from one type of habitat to another. Conversely, the proposed road improvements that are needed to enhance access to the Turkey Point plant site during construction are expected to result in direct and temporary losses of panther habitats. The number of PHUs that the USFWS may require for mitigation for the direct and temporary losses of panther habitat due to improvements to roads accessing the Site was estimated. FPL will work with the USFWS, ACOE, and other appropriate agencies to determine mitigation recommendations for the loss of panther habitats after a final design for project features has been achieved consistent with the conditions of site certification.
Methods
Land Use/Land Cover Data
Updated land use/land cover data for the proposed preferred and alternative secondary transmission line corridors and for a conceptual footprint of the proposed road improvements were obtained from Golder Associates Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Gainesville, Florida. These data were provided in GIS format as ArcView (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA) shape files. Land use/land cover types had been classified according to the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) (Florida Department of Transportation 1999, as modified by the SFWMD). A new field was added to the land use/land cover database to correlate FLUCFCS codes to the more general land cover types adopted by USFWS for panther habitat impact assessments. Another field was added to the database, and it was populated with the land cover scores used by USFWS to calculate assumed Florida panther habitat impacts in terms of PHUs. Land use/land cover polygons for the transmission line corridor were cut along the boundaries of corridor segments as determined by FPL engineering staff (Figure 2), and a new field was added to the database to indicate the corridor segment in which each land use/land cover type polygon occurred. The modified land use/land cover data for the proposed transmission line corridor and road improvements footprint were clipped along the boundaries of the PFA Primary and Secondary Zone (Figure 3), and the acreage of each polygon in the clipped data set was recalculated. These steps produced updated land use/land cover databases for the two alternative transmission line corridors and for the conceptual footprint of the proposed plant access roads. Each polygon in the databases contained information on USFWS cover type, score, acreage, corridor segment label, and panther zone. All GIS analyses were performed using ArcMap 9.3 (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA).
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
3
Estimates of Acreages of Potential Habitat Loss within the Transmission Line Corridor
Precise calculations of project effects that may occur on panther habitats associated with construction of transmission lines were not possible because the exact footprints for proposed fill pads for transmission line structures and associated access road improvements have not been finalized. However, the total acreage of each corridor segment can be determined from the modified land use/land cover database; and the numbers of transmission line structures, acreages of associated fill pads, lengths of transmission line access roads, and acreages of fill associated with access road improvements have been estimated by FPL engineering staff for each segment of the preferred transmission line corridor (Table 1). This information was used to estimate gross acreages of habitat that may be affected within the Primary and Secondary Zones by calculating the percentage of each segment occurring in each panther Zone, and then multiplying those percentages by the anticipated footprint acreage within each corridor segment as determined by FPL engineers (Table 2). Calculations of potential impact within segments of 1B and 1C of the transmission line corridor were based only on estimated acreages for structure fill pads. Access to structures within these corridor segments will be via the road improvements implemented in conjunction with improving transportation access to the Site, and these effects are accounted for in the section dealing specifically with road improvements.
Potential losses of panther habitats were evaluated within two alternative transmission line corridors. The preferred corridor includes segments 3A, 3B, and 3C located immediately west of the L-30/31-N canal (Figure 2). The secondary alternative corridor would follow the alignment of an existing FPL-owned ROW through ENP and WCA (Figure 2). Although land cover data are available for the ENP/WCA segment, a direct assessment of potential effects on Florida panther habitat within the ENP/WCA segment was not possible because FPL engineering staff had not provided an estimate of the acreages that will be directly affected by construction of the new transmission line within this segment. Therefore, gross acreages of potential effects associated with the ENP/WCA corridor alternative were estimated based on the lengths of the ENP and WCA alignments and based on the acreage of fill required for structures and roads in preferred transmission line corridor segments 3B and 3C, where habitat conditions appear similar to those in the ENP and WCA ROW.
Calculation of Panther Habitat Units
The percentage of each transmission line corridor segment potentially subject to filling was determined by dividing the estimated acreage of fill by the total area of each segment. The resulting percentage was multiplied by the acreage of each land cover type within each segment to obtain an estimate of acreage of impact by cover type within each segment. Potential losses of panther habitats were calculated in terms of PHUs by multiplying the acreage of each land cover type in each corridor or road segment by its corresponding USFWS land cover score, and then summing the products. Estimates of PHUs were calculated separately for the following: (1) the preferred transmission line corridor alternative that includes segments 3A, 3B, and 3C immediately west of the L-30/31-N canal, (2) the alternative secondary transmission line corridor traversing the existing FPL-owned ENP/WCA ROW, and (3) Turkey Point plant access road improvements. The total number of PHUs of mitigation that may be recommended for each project component was calculated by multiplying the sum of all PHUs associated with the project footprint by 2.5, the mitigation ratio prescribed by USFWS. However, some segments of the transmission
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
4
line corridors will occur within the Secondary Zone (Figure 3), and USFWS allows for a reduction of mitigation requirements by a factor of 0.69 for Secondary Zone impacts that are mitigated in the Primary Zone. Therefore, a second estimate of mitigation that may be recommended was calculated assuming that all mitigation would be provided in the Primary Zone. USFWS also allows mitigation credit for vegetation restoration and management within project boundaries in some cases, but credit is valued at half the score of the target land cover type due to the lag time involved in establishing restored vegetation communities. Mitigation credits associated with restoration and management of vegetation along the shoulders of access roads within the transmission line corridor were calculated.
Florida Panther Occurrence in the Vicinity of Project Components
Florida panther radio-telemetry records collected between February 1981 and June 2009 were obtained from the FWC. Florida panther mortality records collected between February 13, 1972, and October 10, 2009, and location records of known panther dens between March 1992 and July 2008 were also obtained from FWC. These data were reviewed to document the history of panther use of habitats within 5.00 miles of the proposed roadway improvements and within 5.00 miles of the proposed transmission line corridor. A distance of 5.00 miles was selected for this analysis because average daily movements of male and female panthers are <5.00 miles (McBride et al. 2008; Darrell Land, unpublished data), and this distance was presumed to be indicative of those panthers that have had the potential to occur within areas of the PFA affected by the proposed project even though their presence has not been formally documented by telemetry, mortality, or den records.
Florida Panther Use of Transmission Line ROWs and Linear Landscape Features
Florida panther movement patterns and habitat use in relation to existing transmission line ROWs and canal levees were assessed using available Florida panther telemetry records, GIS data depicting the locations of existing linear features, 2004 digital aerial photography, and a review of the scientific literature. GIS data for the locations of major power lines in Florida as of 2006 were downloaded from the University of Florida GeoPlan Center’s Florida Geographic Data Library web site. GIS data for the alignments of existing levees in south Florida were downloaded from the SFWMD web site. Radio- telemetry records for Florida panthers were obtained from FWC based on the monitoring efforts of FWC, Big Cypress National Preserve, and Everglades National Park researchers for the period from February 1981 through June 2008. GPS-collar telemetry records for 12 Florida panthers subject to FWC research and monitoring studies between 2002 and 2006 were obtained from FWC. GPS collars for most of these animals were programmed to collect records two to eight times daily, but the collar for FP139 was programmed to collect location records hourly (see Land et al. 2008 for detailed information on GPS- collar data collection parameters).
Two of the 12 panthers fitted with GPS collars, males FP117 and FP139, maintained home ranges in the vicinity of an existing power line in Collier and Hendry County. The Convert Locations to Paths feature of Hawth’s Analysis Tools (Version 3.27; Beyer 2004) was used to convert time-series GPS-collar telemetry records into linear paths followed by these two males, and these paths were overlaid on the locations of major power lines to assess panther use of existing power line ROWs. The Fixed Kernel Density Estimator feature of Hawth’s Analysis Tools also was used to model fixed kernel home ranges using GPS-collar records for these two males, and 95% contours for these animals were plotted in relation
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
5
to telemetry records, movement patterns, and existing transmission lines. Florida panther radio-telemetry records for the period from February 23, 1981, through June 30, 2009, were obtained from FWC. Home ranges for females (n=75) and adult males (n=50) were modeled using the Animal Movement SA (version 2.4; Hooge and Eichenlaub 1997) extension for ArcView 3.3 (ESRI, Redlands, CA) to create fixed kernel home ranges as defined by 95% contours. Fixed kernel home range models were overlaid to rank the landscape according to panther use based on numbers of overlapping home ranges. Existing power lines were overlaid on the home range models and displayed in the context of radio telemetry records.
GPS-collar telemetry records for the 12 Florida panthers occurring south of the Caloosahatchee River were used to assess panther use of linear landscape features in south Florida (i.e., dirt roads, jeep trails, paved roads, farm field and drainage ditch berms, hedgerows, old railroad grades, trams, power line ROWs). GPS-telemetry data for FP139 were collected at hourly intervals, but only those records collected between 1800 and 0500 hours, at 0900 hours, and at 1300 hours were used in the analysis because these collection times matched those for the other 11 panthers subject to monitoring with GPS technology. The Fixed Kernel Density Estimator feature of Hawth’s Analysis Tools was used to generate ArcView shape files depicting 95% home range contours using GPS-collar telemetry records for each animal. The Generate Random Points feature of Hawth’s Analysis Tools was used to generate random point locations within each 95% home range contour in a number equal to the number of GPS-telemetry records available for each individual panther. GPS-collar and random locations were reviewed by zooming in on 2004 digital aerial photography, and records falling on a linear landscape feature were coded to feature type. Minitab 15 (2007) was used to assess data normality using the Kolmogorov- Smirnov test, and statistical differences between GPS-collar records and random locations were tested with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Results
Calculations of Panther Habitat Units
Transmission Lines: Construction of a new transmission line along the preferred corridor would affect approximately 157.52 acres with a panther habitat value of 969 PHUs (Table 3). Construction along the preferred corridor would occur within an estimated 106.71 acres of Primary Zone habitat containing 670 PHUs (Table 4) and an estimated 50.81 acres of Secondary Zone habitat containing 299 PHUs (Table 5). The shoulders along an estimated 30.83 acres of unimproved transmission line access roads would be expected to quickly revegetate to shrub and brush cover types, which have a USFWS cover type score of 5 (Table 6). Therefore, calculated panther habitat value that may occur within the preferred transmission line corridor after project completion would be an estimated 154 PHUs. The result is an estimated net potential loss of 815 PHUs (i.e., 969 PHUs in areas affected by the project minus 154 PHUs of revegetated road shoulders = 815 PHUs). The loss of PHUs would likely result in a USFWS recommendation that 2,037 PHUs of mitigation be provided based on the mitigation ratio of 2.5:1. However, the USFWS methodology allows for use of a reduction factor of 0.69 for calculated losses that occur in the Secondary Zone but are mitigated in the Primary Zone. Therefore, should all mitigation be provided within the Florida panther Primary Zone, the amount of mitigation the USFWS may recommend for the preferred alternative was estimated to be 1,844 PHUs.
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
6
Construction of a new transmission line along the alternative secondary corridor that follows an existing FPL-owned ROW through ENP and WCA would affect approximately 219.96 acres with a panther habitat value of 1,823 PHUs (Table 3). This alternative corridor would occur within an estimated 157.11 acres of Primary Zone habitat containing 1,271 PHUs (Table 7) and an estimated 62.85 acres of Secondary Zone habitat containing 551 PHUs (Table 8). The shoulders along an estimated 46.04 acres of unimproved transmission line access roads would be expected to quickly revegetate to shrub and brush cover types, which have a USFWS cover type score of 5 (Table 6). Therefore, the calculated panther habitat value that may occur within this alternative secondary corridor after project completion would be an estimated 230 PHUs. The result is an estimated net loss of 1,593 PHUs (i.e., 1,823 PHUs in areas affected by the project minus 230 PHUs of revegetated road shoulders = 1,593 PHUs). This loss of PHUs would likely result in a USFWS recommendation that 3,980 PHUs of mitigation be provided based on the mitigation ratio of 2.5:1. However, the USFWS methodology allows for use of a reduction factor of 0.69 for calculated losses that occur in the Secondary Zone but are mitigated in the Primary Zone. Therefore, should all mitigation be provided within the Florida panther Primary Zone, the amount of mitigation the USFWS may recommend for the alternative secondary corridor was estimated to be 3,603 PHUs.
This analysis indicates that construction of a new transmission line along the preferred corridor that includes segments 3A, 3B, and 3C immediately west of the L-30/31-N canal would potentially affect fewer acres of panther habitat and require less mitigation than the FPL-owned ENP/WCA ROW in the alternative secondary corridor (Table 3). Construction within the ENP/WCA alternative secondary corridor would affect approximately 62.44 more acres of panther habitat than construction within preferred corridor west of the L-30/31-N canal, corresponding to approximately 1,759 additional PHUs of mitigation that the USFWS may recommend.
Turkey Point Plant Access Road Improvements: The proposal to improve road access to the Turkey Point plant includes 10.30 miles of roadway with a total footprint of approximately 129.20 acres. However, not all of these road miles and footprint acres are within the Florida panther Primary Zone (Figures 3 and 4). The conceptual footprint for proposed road improvements would affect approximately 69.08 acres of Primary Zone habitat with an estimated panther habitat value of 412 PHUs (Tables 3 and 9). This estimate assumes that a direct loss of panther habitats would occur within the roadway footprints and that the USFWS would not allow credit for revegetation of road shoulders. This potential loss of habitat may result in a USFWS recommendation that 1,030 PHUs of mitigation be provided based on the mitigation ratio of 2.5:1. No portion of the proposed road improvements occur in the Florida panther Secondary Zone; therefore, no reduction in mitigation requirements would be available for providing mitigation for Secondary Zone impacts within the Primary Zone.
Panther Occurrences near Project Components
The FWC panther radio-telemetry database from February 1981 through June 2009 (N=87,850 records) contains 275 records of panther occurrence within 5.00 miles of the proposed improvements to roads accessing the Turkey Point plant. These records are all from FP21, a female panther that was originally captured for monitoring by ENP researchers in March 1987. FP21 was injured in a collision with a motor vehicle on July 23, 1988. The injury occurred approximately 1.00 mile east of U.S. Highway 1 (US 1) on Palm Drive (SW 344th Street) approximately 2.70 miles west of the proposed road improvements. FP21 was removed from the wild for medical reasons and was relocated to White Oak Plantation in Nassau
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
7
County, Florida. FP21 remained in captivity until she was euthanized in December 1997. The FWC panther mortality database through October 10, 2009, contains one record of panther mortality within 5.00 miles of the proposed road improvements. An uncollared three-year old female died in a collision with a motor vehicle on US 1 approximately 0.50 mile south of the intersection with Card Sound Road on May 9, 2007. The FWC panther den database contains no records of panther dens within 5.00 miles of the proposed road improvements. This information demonstrates that radio-collared Florida panthers have not been recorded in the vicinity of the proposed road improvements since 1988, but at least one uncollared female panther has occurred in the vicinity as recently at May 2007 based on roadkill mortality records.
The FWC panther radio-telemetry database through June 2009 (N=87,850 records) contains 1,770 telemetry records representing the occurrence of 12 Florida panthers and one Texas female puma (Puma concolor stanleyana) within 5.00 miles of the proposed transmission line corridor. These records are summarized as follows:
• 47 records for female FP14 between December 18, 1986, and July 24, 1990; • 463 records for male FP16 between January 26, 1987, and January 7, 2000; • 375 records for female FP21 between April 5, 1987, and July 23, 1988; • 4 records for female FP22 between January 29, 1988, and January 12, 1989; • 59 records for female FP23 between November 18, 1989, and February 27, 1990; • 97 records for female FP27 between May 14, 1998, and July 26, 1989; • 125 records for male FP42 between March 24, 1990, and April 29, 1991; • 334 records for female FP61 between November 10, 1997, and June 4, 2003; • 116 records for male FP85 between March 6, 2000, and February 17, 2004; • 1 record for female FP94 on March 7, 2001; • 117 records for female FP95 between March 2, 2001, and January 9, 2008; • 24 records for male FP125 between July 27, 2004, and September 28, 2004; and • 8 records for Texas female TX108 between May 1, 1996, and March 2, 2001.
The FWC panther mortality database through October 10, 2009, contains one record of vehicle-related injury and five records of mortality within 5.00 miles of the transmission line corridor. The vehicle- related injury occurred in 1988, and it involved female FP21, who was removed permanently from the wild. Two vehicle-related mortalities occurred in 2007, one vehicle-related morality occurred in 2008, and one record of panther mortality due to unknown causes occurred in 1989 and in 2000. The FWC database of panther dens contains one record of a panther den within 5.00 miles of the transmission line corridor. The den record was dated September 27, 2002.
Panther Use of Transmission Line ROWs and Linear Landscape Features
Adult male FP139 maintained a 42,776-acre home range east of Immokalee between March 31 and August 30, 2005, based on the 95% contour of the kernel home range model for this animal (Figure 5). This panther’s GPS collar was programmed to collect location records hourly, and his home range included a 5.20-mile segment of an existing electric transmission line ROW. The ROW is approximately 150 feet wide; structures are spaced at intervals of approximately 1,300 feet; and an unimproved one-lane
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
8
transmission line access road is present within the ROW. Vegetation within the ROW is maintained in an early successional stage with species of ground cover and shrubs typical of upland and wetland plant communities in south Florida. The segment of the ROW that traverses FP139’s home range is in an area of relatively undisturbed natural habitats in private ownership. FP139 moved north and south across the existing power line ROW through this area on multiple occasions. Hourly GPS-collar records show no evidence that FP139 traveled along the access road or lingered in the ROW, but there is no evidence that the transmission line ROW interfered with this panther’s movements perpendicular to the ROW.
Sub-adult male FP117 was outfitted with a GPS collar programmed to collect telemetry locations at intervals of 8, 16, and 24 hours between December 3, 2003, and July 28, 2004. FP117 maintained a series of temporary home ranges of varying size based on the 95% contour of the kernel home range model for this animal (Figure 6). Temporary home ranges extended along an arc of approximately 48 miles from the northeast corner of Big Cypress National Preserve to an area of private lands east of Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, and the total area within all home range patches was 80,605 acres. A 12.90-mile segment of the same power line ROW described above bisected the largest of FP117’s temporary home ranges (Figure 7). FP117 crossed the power line ROW on at least 39 occasions. One GPS telemetry record was located within the ROW, and two records were along the edge of the ROW. The telemetry data for this animal show no evidence that FP117 traveled along the unimproved access road within the ROW, but there is no indication that the transmission line ROW or facilities interfered with this panther’s movements nor did it form a boundary to FP117’s home range.
The transmission line ROW described above traverses a landscape of occupied panther habitats based on 28 years of radio-telemetry records (Figure 8). The number of overlapping female and adult male panther home ranges transected by the power line ranges between one and eight, with the highest number of overlapping home ranges affected by the power line occurring on private lands between Florida Panther Conservation Bank and Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Area (Figure 8). This information indicates that the transmission line ROW has been integrated into the home ranges of several Florida panthers over the last 28 years. Home range and telemetry data appear to indicate that the transmission line ROW does not impede panther movements, nor does it form any type of boundary to areas used by panthers.
One adult male Florida panther (FP26) and three sub-adult males (FP29, FP43, and FP90) have used habitats along and adjacent to existing levees and transmission line ROWs that traverse the northern Everglades (Figure 9). Actual movements of these animals are difficult to pinpoint because radio- telemetry records were generally collected at intervals of every two to three days. However, despite the long intervals between data collection, many of these telemetry locations were recorded on existing levees or in herbaceous wetland habitats immediately adjacent to the levees. These data appear to indicate that Florida panthers do occur on elevated levees with access roads, existing transmission lines, and associated structures in this area, and they may use them as travel corridors and to access habitat and prey in extensive regions of herbaceous wetlands habitats, such as the Everglades.
Linear landscape features within the home ranges of 12 Florida panthers outfitted with GPS collars in south Florida included jeep trails, dirt roads, paved roads, farm field berms, drainage ditch berms, hedgerows, power line ROWs, old railroad grades, and trams. A total of 14.0% of GPS-collar telemetry locations for these 12 animals occurred on one of these linear features compared to the 6.3% of randomly
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
9
distributed points that occurred on these features (Table 10). There was a significant difference (P<0.001) between the occurrence of Florida panthers on linear landscape features compared to the random occurrence of these features in the landscape. These results indicate that Florida panthers occurred on linear landscape features approximately 14.0% of the time, and Florida panthers occur on these features 2.22 times more frequently than their random distributions within panther home ranges would indicate.
Discussion
Applicability of the USFWS Methodology
The USFWS methodology is the standard tool used in south and south-central Florida for calculating potential impacts to Florida panther habitats and for developing recommendations for mitigation, and it was used as an initial method for evaluating the potential effects of the proposed project on panther habitats. However, the data analyses completed for this project suggest that the USFWS methodology should be applied only to the roadway improvements designed to improve transportation access to the Turkey Point plant but not to construction of a new transmission line. The proposed roadway improvements will result in both direct and temporary losses of Florida panther habitat, and the amount of mitigation that may be recommended will be resolved in discussions with USFWS, ACOE, and other agencies once a final project design has been determined.
Conversely, the proposed transmission line fill pads, structures, and unimproved transmission line access roads will result only in a temporary disruption of panther use of the area during construction. Although construction of a new transmission line will alter habitat conditions along the corridor, the new transmission line is not expected to have long-term adverse effects on the functionality of panther habitats within or in the vicinity of the corridor regardless of which corridor alternative is ultimately permitted for this project. The USFWS methodology for calculating potential impacts to panther habitats in terms of PHUs provides a means for comparing pre- and post-project effects on cover types that are assumed to reflect the direct loss of habitat. However, no direct loss of panther habitat is expected to occur as a result of construction of new transmission lines. Available data indicate that panthers do not avoid transmission line ROWs; rather, conservation benefits may result from the presence of transmission line ROWs within panther home ranges. The USFWS methodology produces PHU values that do not measure or reflect the positive habitat benefits that transmission line ROWs and other similar created landscape features (e.g., wood roads, trams, berms, etc.) may provide that may accommodate panther movements and provide habitat for and access to prey. These habitat benefits appear to be especially important in areas of predominantly herbaceous wetlands habitats where white-tailed deer benefit from elevated embankments during periods of high water.
Turkey Point Plant Access Road Improvements
Proposed road improvements in the Primary Zone include (1) widening 1.57 miles of existing two-lane paved roads to four lanes, (2) upgrading 2.93 miles of existing unpaved roads to three-lane paved roads, and (3) upgrading 1.25 miles of existing unpaved roads to four-lane paved roads. These improvements may result in the temporary avoidance of the area by panthers during construction and in the direct loss of 69.08 acres of Primary Zone habitat with an estimated value of 412 PHUs (Table 9). Application of the
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
10
USFWS 2.5:1 mitigation ratio to the loss of these PHUs results in a recommendation for 1,030 PHUs of mitigation (Table 3). These impacts ideally would be mitigated within the panther Primary Zone to achieve maximum conservation benefit to panthers.
The proposed roadway improvements are intended to accommodate traffic during the construction of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. All roadway improvements on publicly owned ROWs will be returned to the configuration in which the roadways existed prior to the commencement of construction, and any privately owned roadways will be returned to two-lane status upon completion of construction. The roadways are not intended to be used as or to become major public thoroughfares comparable to heavily traveled highways passing through occupied panther habitats, such as Interstate 75 in Collier County. Instead, the roadway improvements would occur in an area that is at the urban fringe of the panther Primary Zone, and there are very few acres of habitat that could be accessed in the future by panthers moving north or east of the proposed roadways. Moreover, radio-collared panthers have not been observed within 5.00 miles of the project site in over 20 years, and the only other documented record of panthers within 5.00 miles of the proposed road improvements was that of a female that died in a collision with a motor vehicle in May, 2007, on US 1 approximately 4.00 miles west of the site. This information suggests that there is low likelihood that panthers will occur in the area in the future. Therefore, wildlife crossings designed to accommodate future movements of panthers are not warranted. Rather, the roadways should be designed with wide shoulders that are mowed on a regular basis, thus eliminating vegetative cover adjacent to the road that could be used for concealment by panthers and other species of wildlife. Wide shoulders with improved visibility for panthers, other wildlife, and motorists will reduce the likelihood of vehicle mortality for those animals that do attempt to cross the road and will also improve motorist safety. Panther crossing signs should be installed and reduced speed limits should be established to minimize the likelihood of future panther collisions with motor vehicles in the event that panthers do occasionally occur in this area at some time in the future. Florida panthers are capable of crossing multi-lane roadways without the need for underpasses as long as visibility and speed limits are satisfactory and traffic volume is low. Moreover, FPL should train project personnel to be aware of and avoid Florida panthers as well as other listed species of wildlife.
Transmission Line Corridor Structures, Fill Pads, and Access Roads
Florida panthers have used habitats in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line corridor for many years. FWC telemetry records indicate that 12 radio-collared Florida panthers and one Texas female occurred within 5.00 miles of the 43.60-mile long transmission line corridor between December 1986, and January 2008, and three vehicle mortalities were recorded within 5.00 miles of the corridor in 2007 and 2008. Activities associated with construction of a new transmission line and associated structure pads and access roads may be expected to cause panthers to temporarily avoid using habitats in the vicinity of the corridor. However, panthers should also be expected to adjust to the presence of the new ROW and maintenance activities, and they are likely to reoccupy areas affected by the power line once construction is complete. Existing transmission lines, structure pads, and unimproved transmission line access roads within occupied panther habitats on privately owned lands between Panther Island Conservation Bank and Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Area appear to have had no discernable effects on panther habitat use or movement patterns based on 28 years of population monitoring.
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
11
Telemetry records also indicate that four males appear to have used levees as corridors for movement and to access prey in the herbaceous wetlands of the northern Everglades in areas where construction of canals, levees, unimproved roads, and power lines has occurred. The unimproved roads proposed to provide access to the structures within the portions of the transmission line corridor planned for lands within the PFA may also provide new travel corridors for Florida panthers in affected areas, and they are likely to facilitate panther access to prey in the herbaceous wetlands habitats adjacent to the roads. Florida panthers have been documented to travel and disperse along trails, trams and abandoned railroad grades (Maehr et al. 2002), and woods roads, especially where cover is dense. Dickson et al. (2005) concluded that dirt roads do not inhibit, and may even promote, movements of pumas in California. Population counts of Florida panthers are based in part on documentation of Florida panthers crossing dirt roads and jeep trails in south Florida (McBride et al. 2008). An analysis performed for this project demonstrated that 14.0% of GPS-collar telemetry records for 12 Florida panthers occurred on linear landscape features, including dirt roads, jeep trails, canal levees, and power line corridors, and panther occurrence on these features was significantly greater (P<0.001) than the random occurrence of these features in panther home ranges.
The higher elevations and shrubby vegetation along the shoulders of new roads and structure pads within ENP may improve foraging opportunities for panthers due to increased use of these areas by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), the principal prey species of the panther in ENP (Dalrymple and Bass 1996). Highest densities of white-tailed deer in the Florida Everglades occur during periods of high water when deer concentrate in areas of higher elevation, including tree islands (Fleming et al. 1994, Labisky 1994, Labisky et al. 1995). Management techniques suggested for white-tailed deer in the Florida Everglades include maintaining water levels at depths less than two feet and creation or maintenance of elevated sites (e.g., tree islands, canal banks) to allow deer to survive periods of excessively deep water (Loveless 1959).
This information leads to the conclusion that the effects on panther habitat resulting from construction of access road improvements, fill pads, and structures associated with the proposed transmission line will be temporary and occur only during the period of construction. These new landscape features will likely have no long-term adverse effects on panthers within the area based on observations of panther activities within similar habitats in other areas of south Florida where panthers and existing transmission line ROWs co-exist. Moreover, these new features have the potential to benefit panther conservation by providing new movement corridors; by providing elevated habitat features likely to provide refuges during periods of high water; and by enhancing white-tailed deer populations, the principal prey species of panthers, in the herbaceous wetland habitats adjacent to the transmission line access roads. Public access to the new transmission line access roads should be minimized or prohibited to limit the potential for panther-human interaction.
Summary and Conclusions
The Turkey Point plant site and the Clear Sky-Davis-Miami transmission line corridor are outside of the PFA. Therefore, construction activities occurring on the plant site and along the eastern transmission line corridor are not expected to affect Florida panthers or their habitats, and no mitigation for impacts to panthers should be recommended for these project components.
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
12
The conceptual footprint for the proposed roadway improvements would result in the direct loss of panther habitat with a value of 412 PHUs, requiring an estimated 1,030 PHUs of mitigation. However, loss of panther habitat is expected to be minimized in some areas and temporary in others as FPL intends to restore publicly owned ROWs to pre-project configurations, and privately owned roads will be returned to two-lane status upon completion of construction. FPL will work with the USFWS, ACOE, and other appropriate agencies to determine actual mitigation recommendations for the direct and temporary loss of panther habitats after a final design for project features has been achieved, consistent with the conditions of site certification. Mitigation for the loss of PHUs resulting from road improvements should be provided at an acceptable location within the Florida panther Primary Zone to achieve maximum conservation benefit. The roadway improvements are proposed in an area at the urban fringe of the Primary Zone where telemetry and mortality records indicate that panthers have occurred infrequently during the last 20 years. Installation of wildlife crossings to accommodate future movements of Florida panthers are not warranted in this area due to the small area of potentially suitable habitats north and east of the roadways. If panthers do frequent the area, they are likely to safely cross the new roads if wide road shoulders are maintained to eliminate concealment cover and promote visibility, traffic volumes remain as anticipated, panther crossing signs are installed, and low speed limits are established. Moreover, training should be provided to project personnel to increase their awareness of and need to avoid Florida panthers and other listed species of wildlife.
The USFWS methodology was used initially for estimating potential effects of the proposed transmission line on Florida panthers and their habitats. However, the proposed transmission line, associated structures, fill pads, and unimproved access roads are expected to only temporarily affect Florida panther habitat during the construction phase. Available data demonstrate that Florida panthers co-exist with transmission line ROWs, jeep trails, dirt roads, and canal levees in other areas of their range, and panthers occur on these features at a frequency greater than their random occurrence within panther home ranges. Elevated fill areas may be expected to improve foraging and high-water refuge opportunities for white- tailed deer, the principal prey species of panthers. The long-term functionality of panther habitats within and adjacent to the new transmission line corridor will be maintained without adverse effect. The USFWS methodology for calculating potential loss of Florida panther habitats is not appropriate for evaluation of the transmission line components of this project. The methodology only compares the relative values of land cover types under pre- and post-project conditions and assumes a direct loss of habitat. However, the methodology does not have the ability to reflect the habitat values and benefits provided by the features occurring within and likely to result from the proposed transmission line ROWs. Therefore, no mitigation should be required for construction of the proposed transmission lines regardless of whether the preferred or secondary corridor is selected for this project.
Literature Cited
Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228-237.
Beyer, H. L. 2004. Hawth’s analysis tools for ArcGIS. http://www.spatialecology.com/htools.
Dalrymple, G. H., and O. L. Bass, Jr. 1996. The diet of the Florida panther in Everglades National Park. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 39(5):173-193.
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
13
Dickson, B. G., J. S. Jenness, and P. Beier. 2005. Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1):264-276.
Fleming, D. M., J. Schortemeyer, and J. Ault. 1994. Distribution and abundance of white-tailed deer in the Florida Everglades. Pages 247-274 in Jordan, D. B., editor. Proceedings of the Florida panther conference. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL.
Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida land use, cover and forms classification system. Handbook. FDOT, Tallahassee, FL.
Hooge, P. N., and B. Eichenlaub. 1997. Animal movement extension to ArcView version 1.1. Alaska Science Center, Biological Science Office, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK.
Labisky, R. F. 1994. Population ecology of white-tailed deer in the wet prairie of Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park. Pages 275-276 in Jordan, D. B., editor. Proceedings of the Florida panther conference. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL.
Labisky, R. F., M. C. Boulay, K. E. Miller, R. A. Sargent, Jr., and J. M. Zultowsky. 1995. Population ecology of white-tailed deer in Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park. Final report to USDI-National Park Service. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Land, E. D., D. B. Shindle, R. J. Kawula, J. F. Benson, M. A. Lotz, and D. P. Onorato. 2008. Florida panther habitat selection analysis of concurrent GPS and VHF telemetry data. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(3):633-639.
Loveless, C. M. 1959. The Everglades deer herd, life history and management. Technical bulletin no. 6. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL.
Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, D. B. Shindle, O. L. Bass, and T. S. Hoctor. 2002. Florida panther dispersal and conservation. Biological Conservation 106:182-197.
McBride, R. T., R. T McBride, R. M. McBride, and C. E. McBride. 2008. Counting pumas by categorizing physical evidence. Southeastern Naturalist 7(3):381-400.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Florida panther effect determination key. Letter dated February 19, 2007, from Paul Souza, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, FL, to David S. Hobbie, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL.
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
14
TABLES
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
15 Table 1 Data Provided by FPL for the Preferred Transmission Line Corridor - Road dimensions, number of structure pads, and estimated total acreage of dredge and fill impact for those segments of the preferred transmission line corridor that occur in whole or in part within the Florida Panther Focus Area.
Road Total Other Depth of Road Road Road Pad Dredge Total Fill Length Width Area Number Area & Fill Impact Segment (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Acres) of Pads (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) 1B 5 9,741 48 15.21 22 8.44 0 23.65 1C 5 10,734 36 10.84 28 9.05 0 19.89 1D 5 21,854 18 19.07 59 25.69 0 44.76 2 1 0 0 0 5 2.7 0 2.70 3A 1-4 4,593 18 2.37 23 12.96 0 15.33 3B 1-6 39,840 18 35.88 108 66.75 0 102.63 3C 6 20,352 18 19.62 54 36.33 0 55.95 4 5 14,066 18 12.27 41 15.42 0 27.69 Access 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.63 1.63 Access 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0.20
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 1.doc
Table 2 TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDORS: Total acreage of each transmission line corridor segment; acreage and percent of each segment within the Florida panther Primary and Secondary Zones; acreage of impact due to dredging and filling for pads and access roads as estimated by FPL engineering staff for each corridor segment; and estimated acreage of potential dredge and fill impact within the Primary and Secondary Zones.
Segment Area in Panther Zones Percent by Zone Segment Estimated Impact Total Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Impact Primary Secondary Segment Acres Acres Acres Zone Zone Acres* Acres Acres 1B 112.14 20.16 0 18.0% 0.0% 8.44 1.52 0.00 1C 81.48 81.48 0 100.0% 0.0% 9.05 9.05 0.00 1D 219.73 191.14 0 87.0% 0.0% 44.76 38.94 0.00 2 706.54 0.55 0 0.1% 0.0% 2.70 0.002 0.00 3A 126.94 72.66 0 57.2% 0.0% 15.33 8.77 0.00 3B 858.44 405.08 9.53 47.2% 1.1% 102.63 48.43 1.14 3C 433.35 0 371.02 0.0% 85.6% 55.95 0.00 47.90 4 235.93 0 2.91 0.0% 1.2% 27.69 0.00 0.34 Access 1 364.74 0 274.66 0.0% 75.3% 1.63 0.00 1.23 Access 2 10.5 0 10.5 0.0% 100.0% 0.20 0.00 0.20 ENP/WCA 498.71 317.76 180.95 63.7% 36.3% 168.88 107.60 61.28 Total 3,648.50 1,088.83 849.57 — — — — —
* See Table 1.
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 2.doc Table 3 Summary of potential pre- and post-project impacts to Florida panther habitats in terms of Panther Habitat Units (PHU) for the preferred transmission line corridor alternative involving relocation of segments to the west side of the L-30/31-N canal; the corridor alternative that utilizes the existing right-of-way through Everglades National Park (ENP) and Water Conservation Area 3B (WCA); and associated with road improvements to upgrade access to Turkey Point power plant. Post-project PHU calculations assume that the shoulders of unimproved transmission line access roads will revegetate to shrub and brush cover types in a short period of time.
FWS Pre-Project Post-Project Project Feature FWS Cover Type Score Acres PHU Acres PHU Preferred Transmission Freshwater Marsh 9 84.17 758 0 0 Line Corridor Hardwood Swamp 9 9.84 89 0 0 Grassland/Pasture 7 1.46 10 0 0 Cropland 4 12.16 49 0 0 Shrub and Brush 5 0.00 0 30.83 154 Exotic Plants 3 21.48 64 0 0 Urban and Barren 0 14.78 0 126.69 0 Water 0 13.64 0 0 0 Total 157.52 969 157.52 154 Secondary Alternative Freshwater Marsh 9 182.45 1,642 0 0 Transmission Line Hardwood Swamp 9 11.58 104 0 0 Corridor (including Grassland/Pasture 7 0.08 1 0 0 ENP/WCA ROW) Shrub and Brush 5 0.00 0 46.04 230 Cropland 4 7.89 32 0 0 Exotic Plants 3 14.80 44 0 0 Urban and Barren 0 2.22 0 173.92 0 Water 0 0.95 0 0 0 Total 219.96 1,823 219.96 230 Power Plant Freshwater Marsh 9 28.43 256 0 0 Access Roads Hardwood Swamp 9 13.89 125 0 0 Cropland 4 4.61 18 0 0 Orchards/Groves 4 1.59 6 0 0 Exotic Plants 3 2.1 6 0 0 Urban and Barren 0 15.49 0 69.08 0 Water 0 2.97 0 0 0 Total 69.08 412 69.08 0
Table 4 PREFERRED CORRIDOR – PANTHER PRIMARY ZONE: Acreages and Panther Habitat Units (PHU) for each cover type potentially affected by dredging and filling within each segment of the preferred transmission line corridor (i.e., includes segments along the L-30/31-N canal) that occurs within the Florida panther Primary Zone.
Primary Zone - Transmission Line Corridor Segments Preferred Corridor (L-30/31-N) Corridor Estimated Segment Segment FWS Total Impact Segment FWS Cover Type Score Acres Acres PHU 1B Freshwater Marsh 9 19.71 1.49 13 Urban 0 0.45 0.03 0 Subtotal 20.16 1.52 13 1C Freshwater Marsh 9 58.71 6.52 59 Hardwood Swamp 9 19.21 2.13 19 Urban 0 3.39 0.38 0 Water 0 0.17 0.02 0 Subtotal 81.48 9.05 78 1D Freshwater Marsh 9 56.35 11.48 103 Hardwood Swamp 9 31.76 6.47 58 Grassland/Pasture 7 0.38 0.08 1 Cropland 4 38.71 7.89 32 Exotic Plants 3 56.47 11.50 35 Urban 0 6.15 1.25 0 Water 0 1.32 0.27 0 Subtotal 191.14 38.94 228 2 Grassland/Pasture 7 2.700.0021 0.0147 Subtotal 2.70 0.0021 0.0147
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 4.doc Table 4 Continued.
Primary Zone - Transmission Line Corridor Segments Preferred Corridor (L-30/31-N) Corridor Estimated Segment Segment FWS Total Impact Segment FWS Cover Type Score Acres Acres PHU 3A Freshwater Marsh 9 55.73 6.73 61 Cropland 4 0.13 0.02 0 Exotic Plants 3 9.98 1.20 4 Urban 0 6.82 0.82 0 Subtotal 72.66 8.77 64 3B Freshwater Marsh 9 228.60 27.33 246 Hardwood Swamp 9 0.21 0.03 0 Grassland/Pasture 7 11.58 1.38 10 Cropland 4 35.61 4.26 17 Exotic Plants 3 37.83 4.52 14 Urban 0 47.68 5.70 0 Water 0 43.57 5.21 0 Subtotal 405.08 48.43 286 Summary Freshwater Marsh 9 419.10 53.54 482 Hardwood Swamp 9 51.18 8.63 78 Grassland/Pasture 7 11.961.46 10 Cropland 4 74.45 12.16 49 Exotic Plants 3 104.28 17.23 52 Urban 0 64.49 8.19 0 Water 0 45.06 5.50 0 Total 770.52 106.71 670
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 4.doc Table 5 PREFERRED CORRIDOR – SECONDARY ZONE: Acreages and Panther Habitat Units (PHU) for each cover type potentially affected by dredging and filling within each segment of the preferred transmission line corridor (i.e., includes segments along the L-30/31-N canal) and that occurs within the Florida panther Secondary Zone.
Secondary Zone - Transmission Line Corridor Segments Preferred Corridor (L-30/31-N) Corridor Estimated Segment Segment FWS Total Impact Segment FWS Cover Type Score Acres Acres PHU 3B Freshwater Marsh 9 7.83 0.94 8 Exotic Plants 3 0.05 0.01 0 Urban 0 1.35 0.16 0 Water 0 0.30 0.04 0 Subtotal 9.53 1.14 8 3C Freshwater Marsh 9 225.9 29.16 262 Hardwood Swamp 9 9.36 1.21 11 Exotic Plants 3 28.74 3.71 11 Urban 0 47.21 6.09 0 Water 0 59.81 7.72 0 Subtotal 371.02 47.90 284 4 Exotic Plants 3 2.91 0.34 1 Subtotal 2.91 0.34 1 Access 1 Freshwater Marsh 9 103.88 0.47 4 Exotic Plants 3 43.17 0.19 1 Urban 0 54.06 0.24 0 Water 0 73.55 0.33 0 Subtotal 274.66 1.23 5 Access 2 Freshwater Marsh 9 3.06 0.06 1 Urban 0 4.70 0.09 0 Water 0 2.74 0.05 0 Subtotal 10.50 0.20 1
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 5.doc Table 5 Continued.
Secondary Zone - Transmission Line Corridor Segments Preferred Corridor (L-30/31-N) Corridor Estimated Segment Segment FWS Total Impact Segment FWS Cover Type Score Acres Acres PHU Summary Freshwater Marsh 9 340.67 30.62 276 Hardwood Swamp 9 9.361.21 11 Exotic Plants 3 74.87 4.25 13 Urban 0 107.32 6.59 0 Water 0 136.40 8.14 0 Total 668.62 50.81 299
Table 6 Estimated acreages and associated Panther Habitat Units (PHU) along revegetated shoulders of transmission line access roads proposed for the preferred and secondary transmission line corridors. Shoulders would quickly revegetate to a shrub and brush successional stage with a USFWS land cover score of 5, and the PHU calculation assumes no reduction in credit would be required due to the short time lag involved in achieving restoration.
Shoulder Fill Total Impact Restoration Credit Segment (Acres) Percent Impact (Acres) (PHU) 1B 4.48 18.0% 0.80 4 1C 1.97 100.0% 1.97 10 1D 10.04 87.0% 8.73 44 2 0.00 0.1% 0.00 0 3A 0.47 57.2% 0.27 1 3B 19.42 48.3% 9.38 47 3C 11.21 85.6% 9.60 48 4 6.46 1.2% 0.08 0 Access 1 0.00 75.3% 0.00 0 Access 2 0.00 100.0% 0.00 0 ENP/WCA 34.53 100.0% 34.53 173 ROW Preferred 30.83 154 Secondary 46.04 230
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 6.doc Table 7 SECONDARY CORRIDOR – PANTHER PRIMARY ZONE: Acreages and Panther Habitat Units (PHU) for each cover type potentially affected by dredging and filling within each segment of the secondary transmission line corridor (i.e., includes segments along the existing FPL-owned right-of- way (ROW) in Everglades National Park and Water Conservation Area 3B [ENP/WCA]) and that occurs within the Florida panther Primary Zone.
Primary Zone - Transmission Line Corridor Segments Secondary Corridor (ENP/WCA ROW) Corridor Estimated Segment Segment FWS Total Impact Segment FWS Cover Type Score Acres Acres PHU 1B Freshwater Marsh 9 19.71 1.49 13 Urban 0 0.45 0.03 0 Subtotal 20.16 1.52 13 1C Freshwater Marsh 9 58.71 6.52 59 Hardwood Swamp 9 19.21 2.13 19 Urban 0 3.39 0.38 0 Water 0 0.17 0.02 0 Subtotal 81.48 9.05 78 1D Freshwater Marsh 9 56.35 11.48 103 Hardwood Swamp 9 31.76 6.47 58 Grassland/Pasture 7 0.38 0.08 1 Cropland 4 38.71 7.89 32 Exotic Plants 3 56.47 11.50 35 Urban 0 6.15 1.25 0 Water 0 1.32 0.27 0 Subtotal 191.14 38.94 228 2 Grassland/Pasture 7 2.70 0.0021 0.0147 Subtotal 2.70 0.0021 0.0147 ENP/WCA Freshwater Marsh 9 302.37 102.39 921 Hardwood Swamp 9 7.23 2.45 22 Exotic Plants 3 8.16 2.76 8 Subtotal 317.76 107.60 952
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 7.doc Table 7 Continued.
Primary Zone - Transmission Line Corridor Segments Secondary Corridor (ENP/WCA ROW) Corridor Estimated Segment Segment FWS Total Impact Segment FWS Cover Type Score Acres Acres PHU Summary Freshwater Marsh 9 437.14 121.88 1,097 Hardwood Swamp 9 58.20 11.05 99 Grassland/Pasture 7 0.380.08 1 Cropland 4 38.71 7.89 32 Exotic Plants 3 64.63 14.27 43 Urban 0 9.991.66 0 Water 0 1.490.29 0 Total 610.54 157.11 1,271
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 7.doc
Table 8 SECONDARY CORRIDOR – PANTHER SECONDARY ZONE: Acreages and Panther Habitat Units (PHU) for each cover type potentially affected by dredging and filling within each segment of the secondary transmission line corridor (i.e., includes segments along the existing FPL-owned right-of- way (ROW) in Everglades National Park and Water Conservation Area 3B [ENP/WCA]) and that occurs within the Florida panther Secondary Zone.
Secondary Zone - Transmission Line Corridor Segments Secondary Corridor (ENP/WCA ROW) Corridor Estimated Segment Segment FWS Total Impact Segment FWS Cover Type Score Acres Acres PHU ENP/WCA Freshwater Marsh 9 177.48 60.10 541 Hardwood Swamp 9 1.56 0.53 5 Urban 0 0.92 0.31 0 Water 0 0.99 0.34 0 Subtotal 180.95 61.28 546 4 Exotic Plants 3 2.91 0.34 1 Subtotal 2.91 0.34 1 Access 1 Freshwater Marsh 9 103.88 0.47 4 Exotic Plants 3 43.17 0.19 1 Urban 0 54.06 0.24 0 Water 0 73.55 0.33 0 Subtotal 274.66 1.23 5 Summary Freshwater Marsh 9 281.36 60.57 545 Hardwood Swamp 9 1.560.53 5 Exotic Plants 3 46.08 0.53 2 Urban 0 54.98 0.55 0 Water 0 74.54 0.66 0 Total 458.52 62.85 551
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 8.doc Table 9 Summary of acreage and habitat impacts for those portions the proposed access road improvements that occur within the Florida panther Primary Zone.
Primary Zone –Road Improvements
Road FWS Impact Road FWS Cover Type Score Acres PHU SW 117th Ave (North) Urban 0 0.28 0 Water 0 0.03 0 Subtotal 0.31 0 SW 117th Ave (South) Freshwater Marsh 9 2.62 24 Hardwood Swamp 9 3.89 35 Urban 0 1.16 0 Subtotal 7.67 59 SW 137th Ave Hardwood Swamp 9 3.53 32 Urban 0 2.18 0 Water 0 1.67 0 Subtotal 7.38 32 SW 328th St Cropland 4 4.61 18 Orchards/Groves 4 1.59 6 Exotic Plants 3 2.1 6 Urban 0 6.7 0 Water 0 1.2 0 Subtotal 16.20 31 SW 344th St Urban 0 1.66 0 Subtotal 1.66 0 SW 359th Ave (East) Freshwater Marsh 9 4.46 40 Urban 0 0.42 0 Subtotal 4.88 40
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 9.doc Table 9 Continued.
Primary Zone –Road Improvements
Road FWS Impact Road FWS Cover Type Score Acres PHU SW 359th Ave (West) Freshwater Marsh 9 21.35 192 Hardwood Swamp 9 6.47 58 Urban 0 3.09 0 Water 0 0.07 0 Subtotal 30.98 250 All Roads Summary Freshwater Marsh 9 28.43 255.87 Hardwood Swamp 9 13.89 125.01 Cropland 4 4.61 18.44 Orchards/Groves 4 1.59 6.36 Exotic Plants 3 2.1 6.3 Urban 0 15.49 0.00 Water 0 2.97 0 Total 69.08 412
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 9.doc Table 10 Numbers and percentages of GPS-collar and random location records occurring on linear landscape features within the home ranges of 11 Florida panthers. Features include dirt roads, jeep trails, paved roads, farm field berms, drainage ditch berms, hedgerows, power line corridors, old railroad grades, and tramways.
Total GPS and GPS Records on Random Points on GPS Records on Random Points on Random Points Linear Features Linear Features Linear Features Linear Features Panther Sex (Number) (Number) (Number) (Percent) (Percent) FP059 M 121 21 5 17.4% 4.1% FP083 F 423 61 26 14.4% 6.1% FP100 M 528 128 46 24.2% 8.7% FP109 M 530 90 32 17.0% 6.0% FP110 F 827 77 60 9.3% 7.3% FP111 M 1,174 134 85 11.4% 7.2% FP112 F 1,078 45 32 4.2% 3.0% FP117 M 350 44 29 12.6% 8.3% FP121 F 1,080 55 50 5.1% 4.6% FP128 F 367 88 22 24.0% 6.0% FP131 M 813 157 63 19.3% 7.7% FP139 M 1,481 133 95 9.0% 6.4% Mean 731 86 45 14.0% 6.3% Range 121–1,481 21–157 5–95 4.2–24.2% 3.0–8.7% SD 409.34 43.35 26.56 6.6% 1.7%
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Table 10.doc
FIGURES
P:\Admin\Projects\2009019\Reports\Final\Estimate of Panther Impacts_Final_120909.doc
16 75 924
Pennsuco
441 27 Levee 95
112 195
395 836 41 41 1 Miami 41
874
821 Davis
y
a
B 1
e
n
y
a
c
s i
B
Preferred East Route
Preferred West Route
Clear Secondary West Route Sky Road Improvements Turkey Point 6 & 7 Project
Turkey Point Plant Property
Primary Zone
Secondary Zone
Developed Lands 0 1.5 3 6 Miles Surface Waters
Figure 1. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 project, including preferred and secondary routes for transmission line corridors and proposed access road improvements, in relation to Florida Panther Focus Area Primary and Secondary Zones. Access 1 27 5B Water Conservation 5A Area 3B 4
3C
41 Access 2
3B
Everglades National 874 Park 3A 821
1
1 2 y
a
B Road Improvements e Turkey Point Plant Property n y
a
Preferred TL Route c
s Secondary TL Route i B Developed Lands
Public Lands 1D 1C 1B 1A Surface Waters
0 1.5 3 6 Miles
Figure 2. Designated segments of the preferred and secondary west transmission line (TL) corridors and locations of proposed road improvements in relation to public lands and developed areas in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Access 1 27 5B Florida Panther Secondary Zone 5A 4
3C
41 Access 2
3B Florida Panther Primary Zone
874
3A 821
1 Panther Telemetry Panther Mortality Panther Dens 1 Road Improvements 2 y
Turkey Point Plant Property a
B Preferred TL Route e Secondary TL Route n y
a
Primary Zone c
s Secondary Zone Vehicle Injury i B Developed Lands
Public Lands 1D 1C 1B 1A Surface Waters
0 1.5 3 6 Miles
Figure 3. Segments of the preferred and secondary west transmission line (TL) corridors and proposed road improvements in relation to the Panther Focus Area Primary and Secondary Zones, and panther telemetry, mortality, and den records.
e
u
n
e
v
A
h
t
7
3
1
W
S SW 328th Street
e
u
n
e
v
A
h
t
7
1
1
W S
SW 344th Street
e
u
n
e
v
A
h
t
7
3
1
W S SW 359th Street 1D 1C 1B
Road Improvements
TL Segment 1B
TL Segment 1C
TL Segment 1D
Primary Zone Surface Waters
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Figure 4. Footprint of proposed road improvements west of the Turkey Point power plant in relation to proposed transmission line corridor segments and the Florida panther Primary Zone. Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest
830
HENDRY COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY
Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management
C
H
O E Area
L N
L
D
I
R
E
Y
R
C
C
O
O
U
U
N
N
T
T
Y
Y
846
858 29
FP139 Telemetry County Boundaries FP139 Movements Public Lands FP139 Home Range Developed Lands 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Power Line Surface Waters
Figure 5. Hourly GPS-collar telemetry locations, movements, and 95% contour of fixed kernel home range of male panther FP139 (Mar 31 - Aug 30, 2005) in relation to existing electrical transmission lines east of Immokalee, Florida. 720 80 27 27 25 80 Lake Okeechobee 832 80A 832 27
832 846
P
A
H
L
M
E
N
B
D
E
R
A
Y
C
C
H
O
C
U
O
N
U
Okaloacoochee T
N
Y
Dinner T
Slough State Y Forest Island Ranch Wildlife Management 833 Area SFWMD
C H STA
O
E
L N 846
L
D
I
R E SFWMD
Y R Rotenberger
C C EAA
O O Wildlife
U
U
N
N
T Management
T
Y Y Area
858 Florida Panther Conservation Bank
858 Seminole Tribe Big Cypress Reservation
HENDRY COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY FP117 Telemetry County Boundaries Big Cypress FP117 Movements Public Lands National Preserve FP117 Home Range Indian Reservation 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles Power8 L39ine Surface Waters
Figure 6. GPS-collar telemetry locations, movements, and 95% contour of fixed kernel home range of male panther FP117 (Dec 3, 2003 - Jul 28, 2004) in relation to existing electrical transmission line east of Immokalee, Florida. Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Area 846 SFWMD 833 STA
846
SFWMD EAA
C
H
O
E
L N
L
D
I
R
E
Y
R
C
C
O
O
U
U
Florida N
N
T
T
Y Panther Y Conservation Bank
Seminole Tribe Big Cypress Reservation
HENDRY COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY
Big Cypress National Preserve FP117 Telemetry County Boundaries FP117 Movements Public Lands FP117 Home Range Indian Reservation 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Miles Power Line Surface Waters
Figure 7. GPS-collar telemetry locations, movements, and 95% contour of fixed kernel home range of male panther FP117 (Dec 3, 2003 - Jul 28, 2004) in relation to existing electrical transmission line east of Immokalee, Florida. Spirit of the Wild WMA
832
Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest 830 830A
HENDRY COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Area 833
29A 846 846 Immokalee
846
29 858 Florida Panther Conservation Bank
858
HENDRY COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY
Power Line County Boundaries Big Cypress Home Range Overlaps Public Lands National Preserve High : 26 Indian Reservation Surface Waters 839 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles Low : 1 75 93 93
Figure 8. Overlapping 95% contours of fixed kernel home ranges for 73 female and 48 adult male Florida panthers based on radio-collar telemetry data collected between February 1981 and June 2009 in relation to existing electrical transmission lines.
P 827
A
H
L
M
E
N
B
D
E
R
A
Y
C
C
H
O
C
U SFWMD Everglades
O
N
U
T N
Y Agricultural Area
T 27 Y
Rotenberger Holey Land Wildlife Wildlife Management Management Area Area SFWMD STA
PALM BEACH COUNTY BROWARD COUNTY
833
27 Miccosukee Everglades Indian Water 25 Conservation and Area
Francis S. Taylor
B
C
R
O 93 75 93 O
L
W
L
A
I
E
R
R D Wildlife
C
C
O
O
U
U
N
N
T
T
Y Y Management
Area FP26 Adult Male Power Line FP29 Subadult Male Levee FP43 Subadult Male Public Lands FP90 Subadult Male Indian Reservation 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles County Boundaries Surface Waters
Figure 9. Radio-telemetry records of four male Florida panthers that used habitats along and adjacent to existing electrical transmission lines, canals, and levees in the Florida Everglades between May 1988 and April 2001.
ATTACHMENT E
AVIAN PROTECTON PLAN
Avian Protection Plan Florida Power & Light Company
Submitted to: Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Blvd. Juno Beach, FL 33408
Prepared by:
Pandion Systems, Inc. 4603 NW 6th Street Gainesville, FL 32609 www.pandionsystems.com
With assistance from: EDM International, Inc. 4001 Automation Way Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
May 2007
(This page left intentionally blank.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. FPL CORPORATE AVIAN PROTECTION POLICY ...... 2 3. BACKGROUND: AVIAN INTERACTIONS WITH UTILITY FACILITIES ...... 3 3.1. Factors Contributing to Avian Electrocutions ...... 8 3.1.1. Bird Size...... 8 3.1.2. Bird Behavior ...... 9 3.1.3. Bird Abundance and Habitat Use ...... 10 3.1.4. Structural Design ...... 11 3.2. Factors Contributing to Avian Collisions ...... 11 3.2.1. Bird Size...... 11 3.2.2. Flight Behavior ...... 11 3.2.3. Bird Abundance and Habitat Use ...... 11 3.2.4. Structural Design ...... 12 3.3. Other Avian Interactions with Utility Facilities ...... 12 3.3.1. Streamers and Fouling of Insulators ...... 12 3.3.2. Stick Nests on Utility Structures ...... 12 3.3.3. Cavity Nests on Utility Structures ...... 13 3.3.4. Ground Nests in Right-of-way or Substations ...... 13 4. REGULATORY CONTEXT ...... 14 4.1. Applicable Regulations ...... 14 4.1.1. Federal Laws ...... 14 4.1.2. Florida Statutes ...... 15 4.1.3. Local Regulations ...... 16 4.2. Enforcement Actions ...... 16 4.3. FPL Permits Relating to Avian Interactions with Utility Structures ...... 17 4.3.1. Carcass Salvaging Permits ...... 17 4.3.2. Migratory Bird Nest Removal Permits ...... 17 4.4. Permittee Responsibility ...... 18 5. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ...... 19 5.1. Determine Significance of Incident ...... 19 5.2. Identify the Type of Species Involved ...... 19 5.3. Bird Mortality Procedures...... 23 5.4. Injured Bird Procedures ...... 28 5.5. Nest Management Procedures – General ...... 29 5.6. Nest Management Procedures – Specific Bird Groups ...... 31 5.6.1. Non-native Birds ...... 31 5.6.2. Bald Eagle ...... 31 5.6.3. Federal Listed Species (except Bald Eagle)...... 31 5.6.4. Osprey ...... 31 5.6.5. State Listed Species, Migratory Birds, Burrowing Owl (except Federal Listed Species) ...... 32 5.7. Nest Management Procedures – Other Situations ...... 37 5.7.1. Nest Trimming ...... 37 5.7.2. Woodpecker Nests and Other Cavity Nests ...... 37
6. AVIAN REPORTING SYSTEM ...... 38 7. PERSONNEL SAFETY PROCEDURES ...... 39 7.1. Injured Birds ...... 39 7.2. Carcasses ...... 39 7.3. Bird Nests...... 39 8. CONSTRUCTION DESIGN STANDARDS ...... 40 8.1. Distribution Standards ...... 40 8.2. Transmission Standards ...... 40 8.3. Substation Standards ...... 40 9. TRAINING IN AVIAN PROTECTION ...... 41 10. RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 42 10.1. Risk Assessment Methodology ...... 42 10.1.1. Bird Biology...... 42 10.1.2. Utility Structures ...... 44 10.1.3. Interaction of Bird Biology and Utility Structures ...... 44 11. MORTALITY REDUCTION METHODS...... 46 12. AVIAN ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITY ...... 47 13. QUALITY CONTROL ...... 50 14. PUBLIC AWARENESS ...... 51 15. KEY RESOURCES ...... 52 15.1. FPL Environmental Contacts ...... 52 15.2. Outside Experts ...... 53 15.3. Publications ...... 55 16. DEFINITIONS ...... 56 17. LITERATURE CITED ...... 58 18. APPENDICES ...... 60 Appendix A. Federal and State Listed Bird Species ...... 60 Appendix B. Florida Scientific Collecting Permit ...... 61 Appendix C. Federal Special Purpose Salvage Permit ...... 63 Appendix D. Migratory Bird Nest Removal ...... 65 Appendix D-1. USFWS Depredation Permit ...... 67 Appendix E. FWC Osprey Nest Removal Policies ...... 67 Appendix E. FWC Osprey Nest Removal Policies ...... 68 Appendix F. Bird Species Field Identification Guide ...... 74 Appendix G. FPL Avian Interaction Form ...... 92 Appendix G-1. FPL Avian Nest Relocation/Removal Form ...... 93 Appendix H. FWC Licensed Wildlife Rehabilitators (Peninsular Florida) ...... 93 Appendix H. FWC Licensed Wildlife Rehabilitators (Peninsular Florida) ...... 94 Appendix I. Scrub Habitat Management Agreement with USFWS ...... 114 Appendix J. Burrowing Owl Protection Guidelines and Procedures ...... 116 Appendix K. SAP and KDS – Employee Training Tracking Systems ...... 118 Appendix L. Eagle Electrocution Risk Assessment Methodology ...... 119
TABLES
Table 3-1. List of Florida Bird Groups and Species that have been Reported as Injured or Killed from Interaction with Electric Utility Structures in Florida...... 4 Table 3-2 List of Florida Bird Groups and Species that have been Reported as Injured or Killed from Interaction with FPL Electric Utility Structures ...... 7 Table 3-3. Large Florida Bird Species that Occur in the FPL Service Territory...... 9 Table 10-1. Historic Bird Mortality Associated with Utility Structures in Florida...... 43
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. FPL Service Area...... 10 Figure 5-1. Species Identification and Regulatory Compliance Procedures...... 22 Figure 5-2. Response for Carcass of Bald Eagle and Other Federal Listed Species...... 25 Figure 5-3. Response for Carcass of Osprey, State Listed Species, or Migratory Birds (Non- Federal Listed Species)...... 27 Figure 5-4. Procedures for Managing Nest of Bald Eagle or Federal Listed Species ...... 33 Figure 5-5. Procedures for Managing Nest of an Osprey...... 35 Figure 5-6. Procedures for Managing Nest of a State Listed Species or Migratory Bird (Non- Federal Listed Species)...... 36 Figure 10-1. Matrix Illustrating the Interaction Between Biological-derived and Structure- derived Risk...... 45
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AEC Area Environmental Coordinator (Distribution Systems) APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee APP Avian Protection Plan BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations ESA Endangered Species Act ESBA Environmentally Sensitive Bird Area FAC Florida Administrative Code FPL Florida Power & Light Company FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers JES Juno Environmental Services KDS Knowledge Delivery System MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association PSC Power Systems Coordinator ROW Right-of-way SAP System Applications and Products SME Subject Matter Expert SSC Species of Special Concern T&E Threatened and Endangered TPS Transmission Project Siting U.S. United States
Avian Protection Plan 2007
1. INTRODUCTION
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) has been committed to the protection of endangered and migratory birds through corporate policy since 1985. This includes compliance with applicable Federal and State regulations, avian-adapted design standards, an active mandatory training program for personnel, and various avian protection programs including nest management and avian enhancement activities.
Recently the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) developed Avian Protection Plan Guidelines (2005) for utilities to design and document their program for reducing operational avian risks that result from avian interactions with electric utility facilities. As a member of the APLIC, FPL was a contributor to those Guidelines.
As an on-going commitment to avian protection of Federal and State listed species and all migratory birds, FPL has developed an Avian Protection Plan (APP) that adheres to the APLIC and USFWS Guidelines. This APP, which brings together all existing avian protection programs in a single document, is designed to provide a single resource for all activities relating to avian protection for FPL management and field personnel. This document addresses avian protection issues including FPL’s corporate policy, the regulatory context for avian protection, regulatory compliance procedures, proactive electric utility structure retrofit program, FPL avian-adapted construction design standards, mandatory training program in avian protection, and various avian protection strategies.
For further information regarding FPL’s Avian Protection Plan please contact FPL Power Systems Permit Specialist, Area Environmental Coordinator (AEC), Transmission Project Siting (TPS), and/or Juno Environmental Services (JES).
Florida Power & Light Company 1 Avian Protection Plan 2007
2. FPL CORPORATE AVIAN PROTECTION POLICY
It is the intent of FPL to conduct its business in a manner that is consistent with responsible avian protection, including compliance with applicable regulations. In order to achieve this goal, FPL has developed this APP with specific methods, approaches, and directives to minimize avian electrocutions and collisions. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Proper Siting of Electric Utility Structures • Use of Approved Avian-adapted Construction Design Standards • Timely Repair and Retrofitting of Structures • Proactive Retrofitting of Structures Identified by the Risk Assessment Process • Regulatory Compliance Procedures • Employee Training in Avian Protection • Personnel Safety Procedures • Coordination with Regulatory Agencies
FPL continues to work on improving avian protection because it recognizes that providing safe, reliable, and cost-effective electricity can be accomplished in a manner that also protects avian species.
Florida Power & Light Company 2 Avian Protection Plan 2007
3. BACKGROUND: AVIAN INTERACTIONS WITH UTILITY FACILITIES
More than 400 species of birds can be found in Florida (Ewel 1990). This great diversity of birds is due to the combination of climate and geography. The temperate climate in North Florida and the broad attachment/connection between the Florida panhandle and the remainder of the Continental US results in diversity of temperate bird species. The subtropical climate in South Florida and its physical proximity to the Caribbean and Central and South America result in an influx of tropical bird species that have limited distribution elsewhere in the US. Some species occur in flocks of several hundred to thousands of birds at nesting sites in Florida, especially South Florida.
This diversity of species can be expressed using parameters of size, behavior, and habitat use. Florida bird species range from some of the smallest birds in North America such as the Ruby- throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) at approximately 3 inches in length to some of the largest birds such as Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis) and Bald Eagles (Haliaaetus leucocephalus) at more that 3 feet in length and with wingspans greater than 6 feet. Foraging behaviors include still hunting, aerial capture, gleaning, etc. Chick rearing behaviors range from nearly no parental involvement after hatching to parental care that stretches for months. Nesting behaviors range from ground nesting in sandy scrapes to massive stick nests that are expanded each year to grow over 6 feet wide. Habitat use includes Florida habitats from the dry sandy uplands to the cypress swamps and marshes, from coastal to inland, and from remote areas to those in the midst of urban areas.
Florida also has the one of the fastest growing human populations in the US, with the majority of Florida’s growth occurring in South Florida and coastal areas (Smith 2005). With the expansion of Florida’s human population and the resultant increase in the number of utility structures, it is inevitable that avian electrocutions and collisions will result. Table 3-1 is a list of Florida bird species that have been reported injured or killed by collisions and/or electrocutions from electric utility structures in Florida. Six bird groups, including birds of prey, wading birds, swimming birds, seabirds, perching birds, and waterfowl representing 41 species have been affected. Birds of prey (e.g., Bald Eagles and various species of hawks) and wading birds (e.g., Wood Storks and various species of herons) are the most common species affected by electric utility structures. Of these 41 species 20 have been reported to have been injured and killed on FPL utility structures (Table 3-2).
Regardless of the number of birds affected, all these species are protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and fourteen species are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act and/or the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act. In most instances, bird mortality involves a single bird and does not present a biologically significant effect to the population or species.
Florida Power & Light Company 3 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Table 3-1. List of Florida Bird Groups and Species that have been Reported as Injured or Killed from Interaction with Electric Utility Structures in Florida.
Type of Listed Status2 Mortality
1
Species Groups Bird Species Source
Collisions State Status State Electrocutions Federal Status
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Bald Eagle T T X X Birds of Prey annual records
Peregrine Falcon E X X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Red-shouldered Hawk X X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Red-tailed Hawk X X annual records
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL American Kestrel T X X annual records
Merlin X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Osprey SSC X X annual records
Barn Owl X X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Screech Owl X X annual records
Black Vulture X X FPL annual records
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Turkey Vulture X X annual records
Crested Caracara T T X FPL annual records
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Barred Owl X annual records
Great Horned Owl X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Perching Birds American Crow X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Florida Power & Light Company 4 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Type of Listed Status2 Mortality
1
Species Groups Bird Species Source
Collisions State Status State Electrocutions Federal Status
Loggerhead Shrike X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Seabirds Brown Pelican SSC X X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Double-crested Cormorant X Swimming Birds annual records
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Sandhill Crane T X X Wading Birds annual records
Whooping Crane XN SSC X X Forrester and Spalding, 2003,
Mottled Duck X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Great Egret X X annual records
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Snowy Egret SSC X annual records
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Great Blue Heron X X annual records
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Great White Heron X annual records
Green Heron X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Little Blue Heron SSC X FPL annual records
Tricolored Heron SSC X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Glossy Ibis X X FPL annual records
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL White Ibis SSC X X annual records
Black-crowned Night-Heron X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Florida Power & Light Company 5 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Type of Listed Status2 Mortality
1
Species Groups Bird Species Source
Collisions State Status State Electrocutions Federal Status
Yellow-crowned Night-Heron X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
King Rail X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Solitary Sandpiper X FPL annual records
Black-necked Stilt X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Forrester and Spalding, 2003, FPL Wood Stork E E X X annual records
Roseate Spoonbill SSC X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Waterfowl American Coot X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Common Moorhen X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Blue-winged Teal X Forrester and Spalding, 2003
Green-winged Teal X Forrester and Spalding, 2003 Notes: 1. Species Grouping follow Based on Peterson (1980) 2. E = Endangered, SSC = Species of Special Concern, T = Threatened, XN = Experimental Non-essential Population
Florida Power & Light Company 6 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Table 3-2 List of Florida Bird Groups and Species that have been Reported as Injured or Killed from Interaction with FPL Electric Utility Structures Type of Listed Status2 Mortality
Species Groups1 Bird Species
Collisions State Status State Electrocutions Federal Status
Birds of Prey Bald Eagle T T X X
Red-tailed Hawk X X
American Kestrel T X X
Osprey SSC X X
Screech Owl X X
Black Vulture X X
Turkey Vulture X X
Crested Caracara T T X
Barred Owl X
Swimming Birds Double-crested Cormorant X
Wading Birds Sandhill Crane T X X
Great Egret X X
Snowy Egret SSC X
Great Blue Heron X X
Great White Heron X
Little Blue Heron SSC X
Glossy Ibis X X
White Ibis SSC X X
Florida Power & Light Company 7 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Type of Listed Status2 Mortality
Species Groups1 Bird Species
Collisions State Status State Electrocutions Federal Status
Solitary Sandpiper X
Wood Stork E E X X Source: FPL Annual Reports to USFWS 1. Species grouping follow based on Peterson (1980) 2. Status -E = Endangered, SSC = Species of Special Concern, T = Threatened, XN = Experimental Nonessential Population
The primary hazards posed to certain groups of birds from utility structures such as distribution lines, transmission lines, and substations are injury or mortality from collision or electrocution. Two definitive publications by APLIC summarize the hazards of collisions and electrocutions and provide guidance on new designs and modification of existing designs to reduce these hazards. These publications are: • Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines (APLIC 2006) • Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines (APLIC 1994).
Electrocutions result when the bird or parts of the bird make contact with energized equipment. Common electrocution situations occur when birds perch, roost, or nest on distribution poles, transmission towers, or substation structures. Collisions occur when the birds are in flight and collide with power lines.
3.1. Factors Contributing to Avian Electrocutions Electrocution can occur whenever a bird completes an electrical circuit by spanning energized contacts (e.g., conductors, jumpers, or connectors) or spanning an energized and a grounded contact. This can happen when birds nest, perch, or roost on energized utility structures. There are a number of factors contributing to the risk of birds including bird size, bird behavior, bird abundance and habitat use, and structural design. See Section 10 for a detailed discussion of risk assessment.
3.1.1. Bird Size Bird dimensions are important characteristics when considering bird protection from electrocution. Birds with large wingspans, including most birds of prey (e.g., hawks and eagles) are more likely to make contact with energized structures and are at greater risk of electrocution than smaller birds (e.g., songbirds) with smaller wingspans. Table 3-2 provides a summary of average bird wingspans and sizes for large bird species that occur in the FPL Service Area. These larger birds such as cranes, great blue herons, bald eagles and pelicans can be considered
Florida Power & Light Company 8 Avian Protection Plan 2007 at greater risk for electrocution than smaller birds, as demonstrated by past avian mortality (see Table 3-1).
Table 3-3. Large Florida Bird Species that Occur in the FPL Service Territory. Species Wingspan Body Length Weight (Inches) (Inches) (Pounds) Great Blue Heron* 84 47 6.5 Bald Eagle* 80 31 9.5 Brown Pelican* 79 51 8.2 Sandhill Crane* 79 47 10.4 Turkey Vulture* 67 26 4.0 Osprey* 63 22 3.5 Wood Stork* 61 40 5.3 Black Vulture* 59 25 4.4 Great Egret* 51 39 1.9 Great Horned Owl* 50 22 5.5 Roseate Spoonbill 50 32 3.3 Crested Caracara* 49 23 2.2 Red-tailed Hawk* 49 19 2.4 Snail Kite 42 17 0.9 Red-shouldered 40 17 1.4 Hawk* American Crow* 39 18 1.0 Fish Crow 36 15 0.6 Adapted from Wheeler and Clark 1995, Terres 1991, and Sibley 2000 * Have reported mortality due to power lines (see Table 3-1)
3.1.2. Bird Behavior Behavioral characteristics of a bird species can increase their tendency to utilize power structures or other elevated manmade structures.
Nesting Eagles and Ospreys will use man-made nesting structures when natural substrates (e.g., large pine trees) are not found in otherwise suitable habitat. Nesting on these structures creates an increased likelihood of contact between two energized parts (electrocution risk) because the nesting behavior requires that the birds spend much of their time in proximity to these structures. Young birds are particularly vulnerable when fledging due to their flight inexperience and reduced maneuverability. The nest itself can also increase electrocution risk as it can span the gap between energized equipment.
Some species have adapted to using utility structures and other man-made structures for nesting and are at greater risk than other species that have not adapted. For example, the Osprey has adapted and benefited from using artificial structures for nesting. In 2003, more than 100 Osprey nests were located on FPL utility structures. Although benefiting the species as whole by expanding its range, this adaptation presents a hazard to this species from electrocution. The nests also present an operation and management issue when they interfere with electrical reliability. Foraging
Florida Power & Light Company 9 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Foraging behaviors that may increase the risk of electrocution include perching on power structures as part of a still-hunting strategy employed by many raptors. Also, perching with large prey items or wet prey (e.g., Osprey with fish) may result in electrocution. An incident of electrocution of a Bald Eagle attempting to bring a fish to a distribution line has been reported in the FPL Service Area.
Perching and Roosting Birds of prey (e.g., vultures) may use power line structures as roost sites (nocturnal perching), or as daytime perches. Communal roosting birds such vultures are at greater risk than birds that roost singly because crowding on the structure can lead to greater likelihood of energized contact. Some wading birds (e.g., Great Blue Herons) may also perch on utility structures.
3.1.3. Bird Abundance and Habitat Use The FPL Service Area (Figure 3-1) has a wide diversity of coastal freshwater and saltwater wetland and aquatic habitats from Nassau County in the north to Miami/Dade County in the South around to Manatee County on the west coast. These coastal ecosystems support an abundant bird life. Inland ecosystems in the FPL Service Area include forested and non-forested uplands interspersed with lakes, streams, and rivers that are used by both resident and migratory birds for feeding, perching, roosting, and nesting.
Man-made habitats such as retention ponds, canals, and water management areas are common through out the FPL Service Area. These man-made habitats also attract birds and are used as feeding, perching, roosting, and nesting habitats. The risks of electrocution associated with these habitats can be exacerbated when power line structures are established in or around such habitats for servicing residential or commercial development.
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1. FPL Service Area.
FPL Service are includes counties that are shaded in color.
Florida Power & Light Company 10 Avian Protection Plan 2007
In other cases, human activity has attracted birds to habitats with utility structures where artificial food sources exist (e.g., dairy pasture and backyards). In one instance, electrocutions resulted when wood storks fed chicken hot dogs became habituated to this food source and started perching on a distribution pole.
3.1.4. Structural Design APLIC and the Raptor Research Foundation recommend a minimum 60-inch spacing between phases and phase-to-ground for minimizing bird (specifically eagle) electrocutions (APLIC 2006). Birds with a shorter wingspan are assumed to be protected by this spacing.
The presence of other energized equipment (e.g., transformers, jumper lines) may reduce this spacing to less than 60 inches, thus presenting an electrocution risk.
3.2. Factors Contributing to Avian Collisions A number of factors contribute to species vulnerability to collision with overhead wires, including bird size, flight behavior, bird abundance and habitat use, and structural design.
3.2.1. Bird Size Large birds such as herons, cranes, swans, and pelicans are reported as casualties from distribution and transmission line collisions because of their large wingspans and heavy body mass (see Table 3-2) and the resulting lack of agility.
3.2.2. Flight Behavior Bird species vary in their flight behavior and flight agility, which are products of the aspect ratio and wing loading of each species. Aspect ratio is the ratio of wing area to wing breadth. High aspect ratio translates into faster and more maneuverable flight behavior. For example, the more agile eagle has an aspect ratio of around 9.3 versus a wading bird with an aspect ratio of 12.5 (Earthlife 2005). Wing loading is a ratio of total body weight to total wing area. High wing loading translates into a heavier and more labored flight pattern. Many wading birds have high wing loading recognized by their low rate of wing flapping. They are at more risk of collision than birds with low wing loading. Generally, species that fly rapidly, pursue prey aerially, or have a high wing loading are more vulnerable to collision hazards than other species. Birds flying in flocks, such as waterfowl and wading birds, may result in lower maneuverability and thus increases collision risk. The less controlled flight of juvenile or immature birds also increases their collision risk.
3.2.3. Bird Abundance and Habitat Use The wide diversity of natural and manmade wetlands and deep-water habitats in the FPL Service Area are used for feeding, perching, roosting, and nesting as well as migration stop over sites and over wintering. Preferred habitats have higher bird abundance than other areas. Power lines that occur in or between the preferred habitats, such as between a foraging area and a roosting site of wading birds can be problematic. This is especially true when only a short distance separates them. In general, birds in these situations will fly at low altitudes potentially putting them at the height of conductors and static wires. Birds that cross power lines at low altitudes several times a day are more susceptible to collision.
Florida Power & Light Company 11 Avian Protection Plan 2007
In these habitats birds may also engage in behaviors that increase the risk of collision (e.g., courtship, nest building, brood rearing) as compared to other habitats.
3.2.4. Structural Design Type of structure and arrangement of those structures is also important when determining collision likelihood. Conductors that are larger in diameter and more closely grouped are more visible to birds. In Florida, it has been observed that cranes can avoid phase conductors by rising above them, only to collide with the smaller diameter and less visible overhead static wires of transmission lines (Nesbitt pers. comm. 2005). Several collision reports have stressed that these smaller static wires are particularly likely to cause bird collisions (APLIC 1994).
3.3. Other Avian Interactions with Utility Facilities In some instances, bird use of power structures does not cause bird injury or mortality but does create a maintenance issue. When birds foul equipment or build nests on structures, outages can result and affect electrical reliability.
3.3.1. Streamers and Fouling of Insulators Birds can create outage problems on transmission lines and substations by fouling insulators with excrement. The excrement causes an electrical fault, which often results in an outage. There are two mechanisms of bird-caused outages due to excrement: contamination and bird “streamers.”
An electrical fault can be caused by contamination when feces build up on the insulator sheds or skirts from repeated defecation and undermine the insulating qualities, resulting in a phase- ground flashover across the surface of the insulator string under wet conditions.
A bird streamer is a long stream of excrement released by large birds, either perched on or in flight over a transmission line tower or distribution pole. A streamer that bridges the entire distance, or sufficient part thereof, between a ground and the nearest live hardware point, acts as a conducting path and an electrical fault occurs.
3.3.2. Stick Nests on Utility Structures Many species of raptors use power line structures to nest, particularly in areas where natural nest substrates are scarce. Distribution poles and transmission towers are a very common type of artificial nest substrate used by raptors (APLIC 2006).
Nest locations on power structures vary by species and type of structure. For example, Ospreys are reported to prefer upper portions of transmission towers or tops of distribution poles. Double dead end and dead end distribution poles are the configurations commonly used by nesting osprey and other raptors in the western US (APLIC 2006).
Although most species that nest on power line structures inhabit open habitats, one notable exception is the Osprey. Of all raptors, Ospreys seem most adept at colonizing artificial nest structures, particularly power structures located near or over water sources where fish are abundant. Over 100 Osprey nests were reported in FPL utility structures in 2003.
Florida Power & Light Company 12 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Eagle nesting on utility structures has been reported with increasing frequency in Florida. These nest sites are located near water bodies where they forage.
3.3.3. Cavity Nests on Utility Structures Woodpeckers create nest cavities in wooden distribution poles. The Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius), a State listed threatened species, has also used woodpecker cavities in utility poles for nesting.
These cavities can cause significant damage to poles by acting as an avenue for moisture intrusion and decay, and also reducing the structural integrity of the pole. Large or numerous excavations may require immediate restoration or replacement of the pole. Unfortunately, woodpeckers can cause extensive damage in a short period of time and can result in pole failures in the interval between routine inspections and the implementation of maintenance/repair or replacement procedures. The cavities also create problems for inspectors and maintenance personnel as poles with woodpecker cavities may fail at the cavity location or they may create a climbing hazard. Further, abandoned nest cavities may harbor other animals such as wasps.
3.3.4. Ground Nests in Right-of-way or Substations Protected bird species, such as the Florida Scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coeruilescens) and the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), can nest within transmission and distribution line Rights- of-way (ROW). These nests are subject to protection during the nesting season, therefore mowing and other maintenance activities are affected.
ROWs are inspected biannually in areas where there are known scrub-jays. FPL has a Scrub-jay Habitat Management agreement with the USFWS for Brevard and Volusia Counties (Appendix I). Nests of known Burrowing Owls are marked along the ROW. Burrowing Owls are also known to nest in substations.
Florida Power & Light Company 13 Avian Protection Plan 2007
4. REGULATORY CONTEXT
4.1. Applicable Regulations
4.1.1. Federal Laws There are three Federal laws that protect birds: the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). When these protected species are injured or killed by any unauthorized human activity the penalties of the applicable laws may be enforced at the discretion of USFWS.
FPL is cooperating with Federal and State agencies to minimize avian mortality and injury by developing this formal APP and continuing to implement its existing avian protection policy, procedures, and design standards. It is important for FPL personnel to be aware of and comply with these laws and applicable permit conditions including reporting any mortality of an MBTA, ESA, or BGEPA species to FWC and/or USFWS (see Section 5). Each of these Federal laws is discussed in greater detail below.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) Special protection is afforded to threatened and endangered bird species under the Federal Endangered Species Act (7 U.S.C. 136; 16 U.S.C. 460 et seq. (1973) and Amendments). The law affords protection to fish, wildlife, and plants that are Federal listed as endangered or threatened (Appendix A). The ESA makes it unlawful to import, export, “take,” transport, sell, purchase, or receive in interstate or foreign commerce any species listed as endangered or threatened alive or dead. “Take” under the ESA means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct in regards to a listed species. Violations may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The ESA increases protection to habitat and prohibits the harassment of threatened and endangered birds. See Appendix A for a list of Federal protected species found in the FPL Service Area.
Maximum penalties (misdemeanor) for violations include fines up to $100,000 per individual and $200,000 per organization, as well as up to 1 year of imprisonment. Vehicles and equipment can also be confiscated.
ESA, as amended, has provisions for permitted “incidental take” under Section 7 and Section 10 of the Act. An Incidental Take Permit can be applied for Under Section 10 (a)(1)(B), which allows for otherwise prohibited take dependent on the following criteria: the take is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755 and Amendments) applies to the vast majority of birds in the United States (See 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 10.13) with the exception of a few species, such as the introduced House Sparrow, European Starling, Rock Pigeon or Common Pigeon, and Monk Parakeet. The State of
Florida Power & Light Company 14 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Florida has approximately 480 confirmed species of birds (includes breeding and non-breeding migratory species) protected under the MBTA (Florida Ornithological Society 2003).
The purpose of the MBTA is to afford protection to migratory birds, their parts, nests, and eggs. The MBTA states that, unless permitted by regulation, it is unlawful to “pursue, hunt, “take,” capture, kill, possess, sell, barter, purchase, ship, export, or import any migratory birds alive or dead, or any part, nests, eggs, or products thereof.”
Culpability is strict liability; no degree of knowledge of the law need be proven during prosecution under this law. Migratory bird electrocutions violate the misdemeanor provisions of the MBTA. For misdemeanors, the penalties include fines up to $5,000 per individual and $15,000 per organization and up to 6 months imprisonment.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) Bald and Golden Eagles, their eggs and their nests receive additional protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250 and Amendments). The BGEPA states “no person shall “take,” possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer for sale, transport, export, or import any Bald or Golden Eagle alive or dead, or any part, nests or eggs, thereof without a valid permit to do so.” The BGEPA expands protection beyond the MBTA to define “take” to include to molest or to disturb.
Culpability for BGEPA violations is knowingly or with wanton disregard for the consequences of their act. Maximum criminal penalties for misdemeanor violations of the BGEPA include fines up to $100,000 per individual and $200,000 per organization and up to 1 year of imprisonment. Vehicles and equipment can also be forfeited for violations.
4.1.2. Florida Statutes
General Rules for all Wildlife Species Florida has laws and regulations that broadly protect all native wildlife, including those that are not protected by the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act.
Florida Administrative Code (FAC 68A-4.001) states that “no wildlife or freshwater fish or their nests, eggs, young, homes or dens shall be taken, transported, stored, served, bought, sold, or possessed in any manner or quantity at any time except as specifically permitted by these rules nor shall anyone take, poison, store, buy, sell, possess or wantonly or willfully waste the same except as specifically permitted by these rules.”
Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act The Florida Administrative Code (68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, 68A-27.005) designates the species classified as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern and provides for the additional prohibitions, penalties, and permits for these species. See Appendix A for a list of State protected species found in the FPL Service Area.
The Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act (Florida Statute, §372.072) declares “it is unlawful for a person to intentionally kill or wound any fish or wildlife of endangered,
Florida Power & Light Company 15 Avian Protection Plan 2007
threatened, or special concern species or to intentionally destroy the eggs or nest of any such fish or wildlife,” except as provided for in the rules of various State agencies.
The rules for obtaining a permit are most stringent for Endangered Species, in which instances permits are issued only when the permitted activity will clearly enhance the survival potential of the species. For threatened species permits are issued only for scientific or conservation purposes and only upon a showing by the applicant that the permitted activity will not have a negative impact on the survival potential of the species. For species of special concern permits are issued upon reasonable conclusion that the permitted activity will not be detrimental to the survival potential of the species.
4.1.3. Local Regulations Local governments can further restrict certain wildlife activities covered by State and Federal statues; generally these are land development regulations or ordinances and apply in the siting and construction of power lines. For example, Lee County has specific land development regulations for Bald Eagles (Lee County Government 2005).
4.2. Enforcement Actions
Federal Laws The ESA has procedures in place (Section 7 and Section 10 of ESA) for issuing a permit that allows some incidental mortality (take) of listed wildlife under specific circumstances. However, the MBTA and BGEPA do not have such a permitting process. Therefore, under the MBTA and BGEPA most bird mortality is considered take and could result in prosecution by USFWS.
USFWS recognizes that some birds may be killed even if all reasonable measures to avoid “take” are implemented. It is USFWS policy to exhibit prosecutorial discretion in enforcement of these laws where avian protection policies exist and are implemented (Avian Protection Plan Guidelines 2005).
According to the Avian Protection Plan Guidelines (APLIC and USFWS 2005), a utility that implements an avian protection plan will greatly reduce avian risk as well as its own risk of enforcement under the MBTA. The Avian Protection Plan Guidelines state:
“While the Service generally does not authorize incidental take under these Acts, USFWS realizes that some birds may be killed even if all reasonable measures to avoid the take are implemented. USFWS Office of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds through investigations and enforcement, as well as by fostering relationships with individuals, companies, and industries that seek to minimize their impacts on migratory birds. Unless the take is authorized, it is not possible to absolve individuals, companies, or agencies from liability even if they implement avian mortality avoidance or similar conservation measures. However, the Office of Law Enforcement focuses on those individuals, companies, or agencies that take migratory birds with disregard for their actions and the law, especially when conservation measures have been developed but are not properly implemented.” (APLIC and USFWS 2005)
Florida Power & Light Company 16 Avian Protection Plan 2007
State Laws Florida law states that violations regarding endangered or threatened species are a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided by statute (s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084). Prosecution for violations of State law falls under the jurisdiction and discretion of the State Attorney.
4.3. FPL Permits Relating to Avian Interactions with Utility Structures In compliance with State and Federal regulations FPL holds several permits relevant to bird injury, bird mortality, and nest management at FPL facilities. These permits include two types of carcass salvaging permits and a migratory bird nest removal permit. In addition, JES maintains a copy of active permits in the FPL Permit Database that can be accessed through the FPL internet at the following path: INFPL > Services > Environmental Services > Programs & Services > Permit Database.
4.3.1. Carcass Salvaging Permits FPL has two types of salvaging permits: a Florida Scientific Collecting Permit and a Federal Special Purpose Salvage Permit. Neither permit allows for possession of any birds or bird parts other than is necessary for transport and disposal as described in the permit language. A Federal permit is required to obtain and keep any part of any endangered species. Therefore, under no circumstances give away or keep any parts (e.g., feathers) of an endangered species.
Florida Scientific Collecting Permit FPL’s Scientific Collecting Permit issued by FWC is used for salvaging and possession of carcasses of birds protected under the MBTA, ESA, and BGEPA. Salvage of Federal protected species requires an additional Federal Special Purpose Salvage Permit. Salvaged birds may be temporarily transferred as long as a copy of the permit accompanies the carcass. An annual report detailing the number of each species, the dates, and locations of these carcasses must be submitted to FWC by the beginning of February. See Appendix B for a copy of this permit.
Federal Special Purpose Salvage Permit FPL’s Special Purpose Salvage Permit is issued by USFWS and addresses dead birds. It allows for the burial or incineration of migratory birds found dead on FPL property. If the bird is a Federal endangered or threatened species, USFWS must be notified within 48 hours of discovery of the carcass. If any migratory bird carcass is found where poisoning or shooting (criminal intent) is indicated, the carcass should not be salvaged but immediately reported to State and Federal Wildlife Enforcement authorities (see Section 15.2 for contact information). This permit requires that an annual report (January to December) be submitted to USFWS by January 31 of the following year. See Appendix C for a copy of this permit.
4.3.2. Migratory Bird Nest Removal Permits Florida State Migratory Bird Nest Removal Permit The management of inactive migratory bird nests, including Osprey and Burrowing Owl nests, is permitted through the Migratory Bird Nest Removal Permit process implemented by the FWC, as per Chapter 68A of the Florida Administrative Code. Inactive nests are determined by the absence of any egg or dependent (i.e., flightless) young in the nest. A copy of the permit must be available for inspection while engaging in the permitted activities. Permits are revocable and
Florida Power & Light Company 17 Avian Protection Plan 2007
require periodic renewal. Permit compliance requires that an annual report detailing the number of nests taken down and the dates and locations of these nests must be submitted to FWC at the end of June. See Appendix D for a copy of this permit.
Osprey Nest – For Ospreys, the permit allows the removal of inactive Osprey nests as a part of routine facility maintenance. The permit requires that a replacement nesting structure of comparable or better quality be erected by the permittee. The FWC provides guidelines for the construction of Osprey nest platforms (Appendix E).
Other MBTA Species Nest – The permit allows the removal of inactive nests of other migratory birds without replacement.
State and Federal Listed Species Nest (excluding Bald Eagle) – The permit does not authorize the taking of active nests of State or Federal listed species, or the taking of any Bald Eagle nest. A separate permit is required (see Section 5.6 for more information on protections for State and Federal listed species).
Federal Depredation Permit This permit authorizes the relocation of active migratory bird nests in emergency situations throughout FPL service territory (except endangered or threatened species or bald and golden eagle nests) when birds, nests and eggs are posing a direct threat to human health and safety or when the safety of the bird is at risk if the nest and/or birds are not removed. Relocation of active migratory bird nests also requires permission from the state on a case by case basis. (See Appendix D.1)
4.4. Permittee Responsibility Activities involving possession of bird carcasses, potential disturbance of birds, or removal of nests must follow the guidelines and procedures in Section 5. All employees shall be responsible for knowing and complying with this APP. FPL is ultimately responsible for activities performed by its contractors. This includes situations in which contractor activities impact birds.
The Permit Specialists or TPS are responsible for making arrangements with the USFWS and the FWC to obtain necessary permits or guidance. Any contact with a Federal or State officer should be handled as a regulatory inspection, and employees must follow their department’s applicable procedure.
Florida Power & Light Company 18 Avian Protection Plan 2007
5. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
FPL’s Corporate Avian Protection Policy is to conduct its business in a manner that is consistent with responsible avian protection including compliance with applicable regulations. FPL employees are responsible for understanding and complying with Federal and State requirements for endangered and threatened birds and other migratory birds. Failure to comply can result in project delays and in personal and/or corporate liability.
This section contains specific procedures to follow for achieving regulatory compliance in the event of bird mortality, bird injury, and nest management. Achieving regulatory compliance involves the following factors that determine the applicable laws and regulations, relevant permits, and allowable actions to correct the situation: • Determine the Significance of the Incident and/or Reliability Implications (emergency or non-emergency situation) • Identify the Type of Species Involved • Respond According to the Type of Incident. Different regulatory policies, permits and FPL policies for corrective action apply depending upon the type of incident: o Bird Mortality (a carcass is found) o Bird Injury o Nest Management
5.1. Determine Significance of Incident Significance applies primarily to nest management in regards to reliability implications. There are two levels of significance: an emergency and a non-emergency situation.
Emergency situations are situations where human health and safety are at risk and immediate corrective action is necessary. Emergency situations include actual or potential electric outages to critical facilities such as hospitals. In emergency situations corrective action should be taken, as per FPL policy, regardless of the species or species group involved. The Permit Specialist or TPS should be notified before or as soon as possible after the corrective action has occurred. The Permit Specialist or TPS, or JES Environmental Specialist will apply for the appropriate permits and make every effort to meet permit requirements (including mitigation) but is cognizant of the fact that the regulatory consequences are secondary in the event of a hazardous situation.
Non-emergency situations are all other situations where immediate corrective action is not necessary. For non-emergency situations the Permit Specialist, TPS, or JES Environmental Specialist and appropriate agency personal must be notified before any action is taken.
5.2. Identify the Type of Species Involved It is important to positively and accurately identify the species involved. If the species is incorrectly identified it can result in actions that are in violation of State and Federal laws discussed in Section 4. If you are uncertain about the identification of the bird contact the permit specialist, AEC, TPS, or JES Environmental Specialist for assistance.
Florida Power & Light Company 19 Avian Protection Plan 2007
To identify the type of species involved, see the Bird Species Field Identification Guide in Appendix F. Then use Figure 5-1 to identify which procedures to follow for regulatory compliance.
Summary of Protections for Types of Species Birds encountered in the field will fall into one or more of the following species types with different protections and permitting requirements: • Non-native Bird Species • Bald Eagles • Federal Listed Species (except Bald Eagles) • Ospreys • State Listed Species (except Ospreys) • Migratory Birds
Non-native Bird Species – Do not receive protection under State or Federal environmental laws. Non-native species include pigeons (Rock Doves), House Sparrows, Monk Parakeets, and European Starlings.
Bald Eagles – Are protected by Federal (and State) policies including the ESA, BGEPA, and the MBTA. Both inactive and active eagle nests are protected, and it is a violation to disturb or harass eagles. Special permits can be obtained under extraordinary circumstances to perform activities that might impact these species. These permits are highly specific and of short duration. This type of permit is handled on a case-by-case basis should the need arise.
Federal Listed Species – Are protected by the ESA and MBTA. See Appendix A for a list of Federal protected species found in the FPL Service Area. It is a violation to injure, kill, disturb and otherwise harm Federal listed species. Active nests are specifically protected. Inactive nests are not specifically protected since many species build new nests every year, however, their nesting habitat is protected. For some species (e.g., the Snail Kite) geographically designated habitats have been defined by USFWS. Special permits can be obtained under extraordinary circumstances to perform activities that might impact Federal listed species. These permits are highly specific and of short duration. This type of permit is handled on a case-by-case basis should the need arise.
Ospreys – Are protected as a Species of Special Concern under Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species Act. FWC has developed a permitting program and nest removal policies for managing Osprey nests on utility structures (see Appendix E). FPL has a State Migratory Bird Nest Permit issued by FWC that covers nest management for Ospreys. The major difference for the management of Osprey nests is that replacement nests must be constructed if an Osprey nest is taken down.
State Listed Species (including Burrowing Owl) – Are protected under Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species Act. See Appendix A for a list of State protected species found in the FPL Service Area. Individual birds protected as well as their eggs and nests. Permits need to be obtained if there is any threat to these species or their active nests (see Section 4.3). The burrowing Owl is listed as a Species of Special Concern and specific permits and protection
Florida Power & Light Company 20 Avian Protection Plan 2007 policies apply during the nesting season, therefore destruction of these nests due to mowing and other maintenance activities is not allowed by State and Federal law.
Migratory Birds – Are protected under Federal MBTA. This includes the vast majority of birds encountered in the field, even if they are not considered endangered or threatened at the Federal and State level. In addition, the State of Florida has adopted the Federal MBTA law. Removal or relocation of active nests of MBTA species requires a permit. FPL has a State Migratory Bird Nest Permit (see Section 4.3). Inactive nests are not protected.
Florida Power & Light Company 21 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1. Species Identification and Regulatory Compliance Procedures. Use the decision tree to determine which procedures to follow based on the type of species. Refer to the figures indicated for detailed information on regulatory compliance procedures.
Florida Power & Light Company 22 Avian Protection Plan 2007
5.3. Bird Mortality Procedures The procedures for bird mortality vary depending on the type of species involved. • Bald Eagle and Federal Listed Species – see Figure 5-2 • Osprey, State Listed Species, Migratory Birds (Non-Federal) – see Figure 5-3
General Onsite Management The following general guidelines apply in all bird mortality situations.
FPL Contacts – When a bird carcass is found at an FPL facility, the Permit Specialist or the TPS must be notified, and they will then notify the agencies and the AEC notifies the PSC Group (see Section 15.1). Employees must not take possession of any bird (live or dead), portion of a bird, an egg, or portion of an egg without first contacting the Permit Specialist or TPS for guidance on proper management.
Carcass Salvage – A Federal Special Purpose Salvage Permit and a Florida Scientific Collecting Permit (see Section 4.3) are required to retrieve carcasses. FPL JES holds these permits (see Section 4.3). Salvaged bird carcasses must be disposed of and recorded per conditions set forth in the permits.
Carcass Disposal – Local operations crews/leaders should request guidance from the Permit Specialist/TPS/AEC on the method of carcass disposal (see Figures 5-2 and 5-3). Carcass disposal methods vary according to the applicable State and Federal laws and permits and include: bury onsite, double-bag and dispose of in a dumpster at a Service Center, or preserve carcass by freezing and wait for further instructions from local USFWS contact or agent.
Personnel Safety – Utility employees should be aware of and follow Personnel Safety Procedures (Section 7) when handling bird carcasses. Diseases can be transmitted by contact with wildlife and employees should wear gloves and/or use an inverted plastic bag to pick up carcasses.
Reporting The AEC or TPS must complete an FPL Avian Interaction Form (Appendix G) and submit to the Permit Specialist who then forwards the form to JES. The form includes the following information: • Date • Location • Structure Type • Specific Hazard (e.g., transformer, exposed jumper, etc.) • Species or Type of Bird • Type of interaction (e.g., nest, electrocution, collision, injury, mortality, etc.) • Tag or banding information, if present • Countermeasures
In the case of electrocution, it is also important to provide accurate information on how it is believed the bird made phase-to-phase or phase-to-ground contact with electric facilities. This information will be used to specify how the pole and its associated equipment are to be properly protected. Field crews must also record the action taken to correct the hazard (see Figures 5-2
Florida Power & Light Company 23 Avian Protection Plan 2007 and 5-3). If temporary repairs are made, suggestions for a permanent solution should be recorded. A permanent solution can be as complex as a total structure redesign or as simple as installing perching deterrents. When a permanent solution is installed, this too must be recorded.
For Power Generation, the Environmental Lead will report any bird mortalities found at the plants to JES via email.
FPL JES files annual reports with the FWC and USFWS that encompasses the company wide bird injury, mortality, and nest management activities for the preceding year.
Florida Power & Light Company 24 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1. Response for Carcass of Bald Eagle and Other Federal Listed Species.
Florida Power & Light Company 25 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Florida Power & Light Company 26 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-2. Response for Carcass of Osprey, State Listed Species, or Migratory Birds (Non-Federal Listed Species).
Florida Power & Light Company 27 Avian Protection Plan 2007
5.4. Injured Bird Procedures Call a Florida licensed wildlife rehabilitator (Appendix H) and use the following procedures for dead birds based on the type of species involved: • Bald Eagle and Federal Listed Species – see Figure 5-2 • Osprey, State Listed Species, Migratory Birds (Non-Federal) – see Figure 5-3
If you must handle or capture a bird, follow the Procedure to Restrain and Transport Birds outlined below, while also following Personnel Safety Procedures (Section 7).
Personnel Safety – Utility employees should be aware of and follow Personnel Safety Procedures (Section 7). Do not handle any wildlife if doing so risks your safety or the safety of others. When in doubt, do not attempt to capture an injured animal. Call a licensed wildlife rehabilitator (see Appendix H) or a wildlife officer (see Section 15.2) for assistance. Remember, even a seriously injured bird is potentially dangerous. Wild birds are very unpredictable and will defend themselves.
Bird of Prey, Wading Birds and Similar Species – FPL discourages its employees from handling large bird species such as hawks, owls, eagles, falcons, egrets, herons, etc. These species have powerful and potentially dangerous defenses such as talons and piercing beaks that can result in serious harm to employees, including eye injuries. FPL employees should contact a Florida licensed wildlife rehabilitator (see Appendix H) or a FWC wildlife officer (see Section 15.2) for assistance.
While awaiting professional assistance for birds of this type, you can cover the bird, or at least its head, with a loosely woven cloth. This will minimize stress and still allow it to breath. This should only be done if the employee is wearing eye protection and can cover the bird while maintaining a safe distance from the animal.
Songbirds and Similar Small Birds – For smaller birds such as songbirds, woodpeckers, jays, crows, etc. contact a Florida licensed wildlife rehabilitator (see Appendix H) for advice on handling these species.
Procedure to Restrain and Transport Birds Handle an injured bird as little as possible and transfer the bird as soon as possible. Any delay reduces the bird's chance for recovery. When transporting a bird, make sure the bird does not get overheated. Do not offer an injured bird food or water as this severely decreases its chance for survival. Wear gloves and eye protection. • Obtain a cardboard box lined with a soft cloth. The box should be well ventilated (cut plenty of air holes) and just large enough to allow the bird some movement, but not so large as to allow the bird to thrash around inside. • Obtain a towel, blanket, jacket, or any other lightweight material. At a minimum it should be large enough to cover the head and upper portions of the bird’s body but preferably it should be large enough to cover the entire bird. • Approach the bird from behind, where it cannot track you as readily. If the bird is alert and can track your movement, anticipate that it will struggle when first covered.
Florida Power & Light Company 28 Avian Protection Plan 2007
• Carefully place the jacket, towel, or blanket over the bird. Make sure it is covered completely. • Quickly restrain the bird under the covering. • As the bird calms down, gather the covering together, being careful to get the bird's wings gently folded against the body, and place it into the cardboard box lined with a soft cloth. Once the bird is safely in the box, a lid with holes punched in it should be placed over the box to prevent the bird from escaping and to give the bird privacy. Frightened birds also find darkness calming.
Reporting Reporting is the same as that required for dead birds (see Section 5.3 and Figures 5-2 and 5-3).
5.5. Nest Management Procedures – General Procedures for nest management vary with the significance of the incident, the type of species (see Figure 5-1), and whether the nest is active or inactive. Active nests contain either eggs or young. Inactive nests are defined as those that contain no eggs or young.
See Figures 5-4 through 5-6 for the specific steps required to comply with the regulations regarding a particular species type. • Bald Eagle and Federal Listed Species – see Figure 5-4 • Osprey – see Figure 5-5 • State Listed Species or Migratory Bird (excluding Federal listed species) – see Figure 5-6
When a trouble ticket about a nest on an FPL facility is issued, Operation Leads or the field crews should request support from the TPS or the AEC to assist with nest removals.
General Onsite Nest Management The type of corrective action to take depends on the significance of the incident (emergency or non-emergency situation).
Emergency – It is FPL policy that in an emergency situation nests may be removed to address the emergency. Immediately thereafter, appropriate agencies should be notified (see Figures 5-4 to 5-6). Permits can also be requested by telephone in special emergency situations. Emergency situations are situations where human health and safety are at risk and immediate corrective action is necessary. Emergency situations include actual or potential electric outages to critical facilities such as hospitals.
If the nest is active or there are injured birds present, see Section 5.4 and contact a wildlife rehabilitator (see Appendix H). In emergency situations active nests may be trimmed (see Section 5.7). This should be coordinated with the FWC (for Osprey) and USFWS (for all Federal listed species) to minimize the chances of birds abandoning the nest.
Non-Emergency – In non-emergency situations for most bird species (excluding Federal listed species) a permit to remove nests can be obtained within approximately 2 weeks. Non- emergency situations are all other situations where immediate corrective action is not necessary
Florida Power & Light Company 29 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Personnel Safety – FPL employees should be aware of and follow Personnel Safety Procedures (Section 7). Some parasites and diseases can be transmitted by contact with nests. Appropriate safety procedures should be observed and protective clothing, eye protection, and gloves should be worn.
Public Awareness – FPL employees need to take into account public reaction in nest removal situations and act in an appropriate manner including explaining the reliability issues and maintenance requirements. FPL Corporate Communications Department will develop talking points for field crews to use in nest removal situations.
FPL Standard Procedures When field personnel encounter a problem nest they should notify TPS or AEC. The notification should include: • Name • Date • Phone number • Service area • Nest location • Approximate size • Structure involved • Activity status (presence of eggs or young) • Species name • Type of emergency response • Plan of action
To determine if the nest is active or inactive, a field visit should be conducted by Operations and TPS or AEC. The response protocol is based in part on the type of species involved and the significance of the incident (whether the nest is likely to cause an outage, i.e., an emergency situation). Emphasis should be placed on system reliability.
For active nests or for nests of Federal or State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species the field crew or AEC should immediately coordinate with the TPS or permit specialist to request approval from the appropriate agencies to remove/relocate a nest. The TPS or permit specialist will inform the field crew or AEC of the agency response.
Employees must not take possession of a nest without first contacting the Permit Specialist or TPS for guidance on proper management. Copies of the applicable permit must be in hand during any removal/relocation of a nest.
Reporting See Figures 5-4 to 5-6 for specific reporting procedures. Depending upon the species involved USFWS and FWC as well as FPL personnel will need to be contacted.
Florida Power & Light Company 30 Avian Protection Plan 2007
5.6. Nest Management Procedures – Specific Bird Groups 5.6.1. Non-native Birds Nests of non-native species are not regulated; therefore, activities involving these birds or nests can proceed without interruption. However, consideration should be given to the method of relocation or disposal of these species relative to public reaction. Non-native species include pigeons (Rock Doves), House Sparrows, Monk Parakeets, and European Starlings.
5.6.2. Bald Eagle Procedures for managing a Bald Eagle nest are shown in Figure 5-4. Special permits and agency coordination is required for any activities potentially impacting Bald Eagles. Removal of Bald Eagle nests constitutes “take” under the ESA. Inactive nests of this species may not be impacted in any way without special permission and permits. Active nest removal also requires a special permit. These permits are difficult to obtain and a compelling reason is warranted for this authorization. Agencies typically provide authorization to remove or move an active nest only under emergency conditions.
If an eagle nest is found in the vicinity of a utility structure or on a utility structure, site specific management zones and restrictions may apply. Contact FPL Environmental Services if any activity is planned within the suspected management zones during the nesting season of October 1 to May 15. Activities around active Bald Eagle nests have restrictions that may limit operation and maintenance activities. The Habitat Management Guidelines for Bald Eagles in the Southeast Region (USFWS 1987) recommends management zones of variable distances (primary zone 0 to 750 feet and secondary zone 750 to 1,500 feet) around Bald Eagle nests. The size of the zones is determined by USFWS on a case-by-case basis depending upon surrounding land use and degree of buffer from human activity. The FWC maintains a database of known eagle nests (See http://wildflorida.org/eagle/default.htm).
5.6.3. Federal Listed Species (except Bald Eagle) The Crested Caracara is the only other Federal Listed Species known to nest on utility structures. For managing the nest of a Federal listed species follow the procedures in Figure 5-4 for emergency and non-emergency situations. Special permits and agency coordination is required for any activities that may potentially impact these species.
Florida Scrub-jays are known to nest within transmission and distribution line corridors, known as a Right-of-way (ROW). FPL has a Scrub Habitat Management agreement with the USFWS for Brevard and Volusia Counties (Appendix I). ROWs are inspected quarterly in areas where there are known scrub-jays. When a scrub-jay nest is encountered it is not disturbed.
5.6.4. Osprey Procedures for managing an Osprey nest are shown in Figure 5-5. FPL possesses a Migratory Bird Nest Permit, which allows removal of inactive Osprey nests (see Section 4.3). The permit requires installation of a replacement nest structure. FWC Osprey nesting guidelines are included in Appendix E.
Florida Power & Light Company 31 Avian Protection Plan 2007
5.6.5. State Listed Species, Migratory Birds, Burrowing Owl (except Federal Listed Species) Procedures for managing the nest of a State listed species are shown in Figure 5-6. An FWC permit is required for both active and inactive nest management for State listed Species. FPL possesses a Migratory Bird Nest Permit (see Section 4.3), which allows removal of inactive Burrowing Owl nests. A separate permit is required for removal or disturbance of any active Burrowing Owl nest.
Nests of known Burrowing Owls are marked along the ROW. Maintenance crews should be aware of these and should not mow during the active nesting season. Follow Burrowing Owl nest guidelines established by the State if Burrowing Owl nests are encountered (Appendix J).
Procedures for managing a migratory bird nest are shown in Figure 5-6. If the species is native but not a State or Federal listed species it is still a migratory bird and as such is protected under the MBTA. FPL possesses a Migratory Bird Nest Permit, which allows removal of inactive migratory bird nests (see Section 4.3). FPL possesses a Federal Depredation Permit allowing relocation of active migratory bird nests in emergency situations. A separate State permit is required for removal or disturbance of any active migratory bird nest.
Florida Power & Light Company 32 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1. Procedures for Managing Nest of Bald Eagle or Federal Listed Species Emergency situations are situations where human health and safety are at risk and immediate corrective action is necessary. Emergency situations include actual or potential electric outages to critical facilities such as hospitals.
Florida Power & Light Company 33 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Florida Power & Light Company 34 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-2. Procedures for Managing Nest of an Osprey. Emergency situations are situations where human health and safety are at risk and immediate corrective action is necessary. Emergency situations include actual or potential electric outages to critical facilities such as hospitals.
Florida Power & Light Company 35 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-3. Procedures for Managing Nest of a State Listed Species or Migratory Bird (Non-Federal Listed Species). Emergency situations are situations where human health and safety are at risk and immediate corrective action is necessary. Emergency situations include actual or potential electric outages to critical facilities such as hospitals.
Florida Power & Light Company 36 Avian Protection Plan 2007
5.7. Nest Management Procedures – Other Situations 5.7.1. Nest Trimming The nests of Bald Eagles, Osprey, and listed species may not be trimmed without special permission from FWC and USFWS. FPL does not trim eagle nests.
In emergency situations, nest trimming of active nests of Federal listed species should be coordinated with the USFWS and the trimming of active Osprey nests should be coordinated with FWC to minimize the chances of birds abandoning the nest.
If trimming is needed before relocating an Osprey nest, FWC should be contacted and informed of what the AEC and crew will be doing and where. The Supervisor or Crew Foreman have only a brief period of time to do their work and can only remove the sticks directly in harms way.
5.7.2. Woodpecker Nests and Other Cavity Nests Woodpecker species are migratory birds; therefore, the procedures for active and inactive nesting MBTA species are applicable (See Figure 5-6). Relocation of an active woodpecker nest requires a permit from FWC and USFWS under the MBTA (see Section 4.3.)
In the event of a woodpecker pole being “changed-out” an inspection must be performed to determine if the nest is active or inactive. The FPL procedure is to check the woodpecker pole hole with a flashlight and an angled dentist’s mirror to look in and then straight down to where the woodpeckers might be nesting. If all the hole(s) on a pole do not contain any eggs or young then the nest is inactive and the pole may be removed. If the nest is active then the pole is cut while the jaws of a boom truck hold the pole, the portion that is free of nests is removed, and the portion with the active nest is bolted or banded to a new pole.
If an active nest (with eggs or young) is found the field crew or AEC should notify the Permit Specialist or TPS who will then determine if the situation warrants emergency removal. If so, the field crew or AEC should notify the Permit Specialist or TPS who will request approval from FWC for emergency removal. When management action is taken on an active nest, mitigation is required in the form of an alternate nesting structure whenever possible.
Florida Power & Light Company 37 Avian Protection Plan 2007
6. AVIAN REPORTING SYSTEM
TPS or AEC completes an Avian Interaction Form (see Appendix G) for each incident and activity and submits it to the Permit Specialist. After the permit specialist notifies the agencies the permit specialist will submit a hard copy of the report or send an email to Stacy Foster or Jim Lindsay. JES will submit the required annual reports to the agencies.
JES maintains a company-wide database system and Avian Interaction Forms to report and track mortality and document corrective actions. Nest Management is also tracked by this database.
FPL is using Agency website(s) for reporting avian incidents http://myfwc.com/bird and/or (add FWS link) and then forwards the Avian Interaction Form and/or the FWC screen capture to JES where it is tracked into a database.
Transmission contacts the appropriate agency and will immediately inform JES of a listed species and monthly for all other species. JES will track this information in the JES database.
Specific information on reporting can be found in Section 5.
Florida Power & Light Company 38 Avian Protection Plan 2007
7. PERSONNEL SAFETY PROCEDURES
Depending upon the situation FPL personnel may be asked to handle injured birds, carcasses, and nests that may have bird parasites and diseases that are transmittable to humans. To protect your self, wear protective gear and follow the safety procedures as directed below.
7.1. Injured Birds Do not handle any wildlife if doing so risks your safety or the safety of others. When in doubt, do not attempt to capture an injured animal. Call a licensed wildlife rehabilitator (see Appendix H) or a wildlife officer (see Section 15.2) for assistance. If you must handle or capture a bird, follow the Procedure to Restrain and Transport Birds in Section 5.4. Remember, even a seriously injured bird is potentially dangerous. Wild birds are very unpredictable and will defend themselves.
Birds of Prey (Eagle, Hawk, Owl, Vulture, Kite, Osprey) – Birds of prey use their feet and talons as a primary means of defense. Birds of prey also have sharp beaks and will bite. Birds of prey are most easily caught by first covering their head with a towel and then restraining their feet. Wear gloves and eye protection when handling a bird of prey.
Wading Birds and Similar Species (Herons, Egrets, Loons, Cranes) – Wading birds and similar species primarily use their beaks to defend themselves. Particular caution should be used when approaching these and other long beaked birds. Their long, spear-like beaks used for catching fish are positioned like a coiled spring. The beaks of these birds should be held securely when picking them up. Take care not to cover their nostril opening when holding the beak. Wear eye protection when approaching water birds.
7.2. Carcasses When handling a carcass wear protective clothing. Wear gloves and/or use an inverted plastic bag to pick up carcasses. Bald Eagles and Federal listed species require special handling (see Figure 5-2). For all other species bury the carcass onsite or dispose of at Service Center (see Figures 5-3).
7.3. Bird Nests Nests can have debris, dust, and some insects that can cause irritation to the skin or eyes. Personal Protective Equipment for nest removal includes fire retardant disposable coveralls and shoe covers, a dust mask, and insect repellent. Some or all of this equipment may be advisable depending upon the size and location of the nest. A face shield is recommended for mechanical hazards (sticks, other nest materials). When working around a nest, a breathing filter should be worn to prevent inhaling dried feces. Where possible it is advised to work upwind of the nest.
Florida Power & Light Company 39 Avian Protection Plan 2007
8. CONSTRUCTION DESIGN STANDARDS
To minimize avian electrocutions and collisions FPL has developed and uses its own avian- adapted design standards for its distribution lines, transmission lines, and substations. These avian-adapted designs are used when constructing new lines or facilities where avian interaction issues exist (see Section 10 Risk Assessment). Appropriate avian-adapted designs are also used when retrofitting an existing structure to solve an avian interaction problem.
For transmission and distribution these standards include designs that reduce electrocution by providing separation of 60 inches between energized conductors and ground hardware or by covering energized parts and hardware where 60 inch spacing is not possible.
8.1. Distribution Standards FPL avian-adapted design specification standards for distribution lines in Environmentally Sensitive Bird Areas (ESBA) are found in Section E-31 of Power Systems Distribution Construction Standards. The current standards can be found on the company intranet site (http://infpl/ps/dist/construction/trs/E-DCS/e-web.pdf). Bird flight diverters may be used to enhance visibility at locations where birds collide with distribution lines. Typically the diverters will be installed only on the overhead ground wire. Diverter installation on the phase conductors in the vertical configuration is only used on specific problem areas.
In addition, FPL has developed a “Designer Field Environmental Impact Evaluation Sheet” to guide the use of avian-adapted designs in ESBAs that includes avian-adapted design standards and recommendations to mitigate electrocutions and collisions.
8.2. Transmission Standards FPL avian-adapted design specification standards for Transmission Lines can be found in “The Transmission Structure Standards” Volume 1, Section 2.1 titled, “Framing and Pulloff Details.” They include several bird discourager, perch guard, bird platform, and insulator shield designs. Bird flight diverters may be required to enhance visibility where birds collide with distribution lines. Typically the diverters will be installed only on the overhead ground wire.
In addition, FPL has developed an “Environmental Assessment Checklist” to guide the use of avian-adapted designs in ESBAs that includes design standards and recommendations to mitigate electrocutions and collisions.
8.3. Substation Standards Although animal-caused outages at substations typically occur less frequently, they can impact a far greater number of customers. FPL’s substation animal protection standard (E-125334) includes use of animal guards and insulation to prevent animal/bird contacts. Animal protection is installed in new distribution substations and is added to existing distribution substations on an as needed basis.
Florida Power & Light Company 40 Avian Protection Plan 2007
9. TRAINING IN AVIAN PROTECTION
Understanding and knowledge of FPL’s avian protection policy and procedures is essential in reducing the risk of avian interactions. FPL conducts mandatory training in avian protection issues for utility personnel and for new designers each time a group is hired. The program educates FPL employees on the reasons and need to comply with the FPL Corporate Policy and imparts an understanding of the applicable Federal and State laws and policies governing avian interactions with power lines. Topics also include FPL avian-adapted design standards, reporting and carcass disposal, injured bird procedures, and nest management procedures.
Training materials are updated as needed to reflect new regulations, changing policies, new products, new technology, and advances in avian protection. Training is administered by the Permit Specialist or TPS. Training is tracked using a program called Systems Applications and Products (SAP) or Knowledge delivery System (KDS) (Appendix K). Employees can sign up for training by contacting the local TPS or permit specialist for the Power Systems business unit.
Avian protection training is given annually to the following groups of employees: • Distribution - Construction o Engineers o Construction Leaders
• Distribution - Operations o Crew o Leaders o Supervisors o AEC
• Transmission – Construction o Engineers o Construction Leaders o Managers o Crew
• Transmission – Operations o Crew o Leaders o Supervisors o Managers
• Substations - Construction and Operations
Florida Power & Light Company 41 Avian Protection Plan 2007
10. RISK ASSESSMENT
FPL has implemented a risk assessment program to evaluate the risk to birds from electric utility structures. Risk is the probability of an adverse event or hazard occurring to birds from collision and electrocutions. As a part of this program FPL has developed a risk assessment methodology that accounts for avian biology and utility structure characteristics (See Appendix L: Eagle Electrocution Risk Analysis for FPL Avian Protection Plan).
This risk assessment methodology will be used for siting new lines and for evaluating the extent of retrofitting problem areas. The combination of these measures will reduce avian interactions and improve service reliability.
10.1. Risk Assessment Methodology The risk assessment methodology considers the two main elements that contribute to mortality risk: bird biology and utility structures.
10.1.1. Bird Biology The risk level for a particular bird species is a composite of its biological characteristics including: habitat utilized, bird size, bird flight characteristics, foraging strategy, nesting substrate and habitat, abundance, movement patterns, and reproduction behaviors. Higher risk species tend to: • Have larger body size • Have larger wing span • Perch on structures • Nest on structures • Have low flight maneuverability
Based on these biological characteristics and past FPL records the following species are considered to have higher susceptibility to collisions and/or electrocutions in FPL’s service territory. • Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus • Great Horned Owl (Bubo leucocephalus) virginianus) • Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo • Brown Pelican (Pelecanus jamaicensis) occidentalis) • Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo • Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) lineatus) • Great Egret (Ardea alba) • Crested Caracara (Caracara • Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja) cheriway) • Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) • Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) • Whooping Crane (Grus americana) • Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) • American Crow (Corvus • Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) brachyrhynchos) • Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) • Fish Crow (Corvus ossifragus)
Historical records confirm susceptibility for these and other species in association with utility structures in Florida. The historical record includes most of these high-risk species as well as other species that are considered less susceptible (Table 10-1).
Florida Power & Light Company 42 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Table 10-1. Historic Bird Mortality Associated with Utility Structures in Florida.
Type of Mortality Type of Mortality
Bird Species Bird Species
Collisions Collisions Electrocutions Electrocutions
Bald Eagle X X Great Egret X X
Peregrine Falcon X X Snowy Egret X
Red-shouldered Hawk X X Great Blue Heron X X
Red-tailed Hawk X X Great Egret X
American Kestrel X X Green Heron X
Merlin X Little Blue Heron X
Osprey X X Tricolored Heron X
Barn Owl X X Glossy Ibis X X
Screech Owl X X White Ibis X X
Black Vulture X X Black-crowned Night Heron X
Turkey Vulture X X Yellow-crowned Night Heron X
Crested Caracara X King Rail X
Barred Owl X Solitary Sandpiper X
Great horned Owl X Black-necked Stilt X
American Crow X Wood Stork X X
Loggerhead Shrike X Roseate spoonbill X
Brown Pelican X X American Coot X
Double-crested Cormorant X Common Moorhen X
Sandhill Crane X X Blue-winged Teal X
Whooping Crane X X Green-winged Teal X
Mottled Duck X – – –
43 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Other raptor species also occur in the service territory (e.g., accipiters, falcons, other owls). However, electrocution incidence of the smaller species, such as the Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius), is not high based on the size of the bird. Larger raptors, including the Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and Short-tailed Hawk (Buteo brachyurus) occur through the region; however, these species are typically forest dwellers that forage on smaller bird species. Based on their foraging behavior and flight patterns, it is unlikely that these birds would regularly use distribution poles for perching, thereby minimizing the potential for electrocution.
10.1.2. Utility Structures The risk level for a particular structure is a composite of the structure type and structure configuration. Structure type is categorized as distribution line, transmission line, or substation. Structure configuration is the juxtaposition and density of energized parts on a given vertical structure and the spatial relationship between multiple co-located structures (e.g., underbuilding).
10.1.3. Interaction of Bird Biology and Utility Structures The combination of the risk level of the bird ecology and the risk level of the utility structures creates an overall risk that the birds will be electrocuted (or collide) with the structures. The geographically based intersection of risk for the bird biology and the utility structures creates a cumulative risk level. A diagrammatic depiction of this relationship is expressed in Figure 10-1.
It is the spatial interaction between these two risk elements that determines the actual risk to the birds. For example, a “high-risk” bird situation, such as an eagle nest with fledgling young that is distant from any power structure is at low risk no matter how inexperienced the young birds are. Whereas, if the nest is close to power lines then the risk of collisions can be considered very high.
Due to the inherently spatial nature of this interaction, the risk assessment modeling was developed in ArcGIS using raster grid layers. This type of GIS analysis is used in conjunction with ground truthing in evaluation of the risk level of new utility structures.
44 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1. Matrix Illustrating the Interaction Between Biological-derived and Structure-derived Risk.
Structure-derived Risk
Low Medium High
Low Low Low Medium
derived Risk derived Low Medium High
- Medium Biological
High Low High Very High
45 Avian Protection Plan 2007
11. MORTALITY REDUCTION METHODS
FPL has effectively and economically reduced bird fatalities and injuries in several ways:
• FPL uses a set of avian-adapted construction design standards for new construction and when “retrofitting” locations where problems with electrocutions and collisions have occurred (see Section 8). • FPL has an avian reporting system to track avian mortality, which aids in identifying and responding to problem areas (see Section 6). • FPL has developed a pro-active risk assessment model that is used to evaluate the necessity for voluntary retrofits of existing facilities in high risk environmentally sensitive bird areas (see Section 10).
46 Avian Protection Plan 2007
12. AVIAN ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITY
FPL has been recognized for many years as one of the leaders among utilities for its commitment to the environment. Many outside organizations have heralded its environmental leadership. In 2004 FPL Group earned a first place ranking among U.S. power companies, and second globally, in a report from the World Wildlife Fund for voluntary commitments to limit CO2 emissions. FPL was also recently ranked first out of 28 major electric utilities surveyed in an environmental assessment conducted by Innovest, an independent advisory group.
In addition, The Florida Department of Environmental Protection named FPL a “Partner for Ecosystem Protection” for its emission-reducing “repowering” projects at its Fort Myers and Sanford Plants. FPL was also awarded Edison Electric Institute’s National Land Management Award for its stewardship of 25,000 acres surrounding its Turkey Point Plant.
Specifically, FPL has contributed to the conservation and protection of birds through various avian enhancement activities including managing habitat for birds, installing Osprey nest platforms, and establishing cooperative partnerships with agencies.
Managing Habitat for Birds Migratory Birds – FPL has a long-standing commitment for managing habitats for migratory birds. In 1972 it preserved the Barley Barber Swamp, a 450-acre old growth cypress swamp, located in western Martin County. In addition to the Barley Barber Swamp, FPL maintains a 1,200 acre mitigation parcel at its Martin Power Plant. This property consists of over 300 acres of wetlands and 900 acres of diverse uplands. In southern Dade County, FPL manages 25,000 acres of fresh and estuarine wetlands and subtropical hardwood forests surrounding the Turkey Point nuclear and fossil plants. The Turkey Point site contains, and is home to 29 state and 17 federally protected animal species, including the Florida panther, the American crocodile and the wood stork. Included within this area is the 1,700-acre McGregor Smith Turkey Point Wildlife Conservation Area.
FPL was the first utility in the nation to establish a wetlands mitigation bank. The Everglades Mitigation Bank, a 13,000-acre buffer surrounding the Turkey Point site, provides a habitat for several unique wetland types, including herbaceous fresh water, mangrove, and saltwater marsh. FPL’s Everglades Mitigation Bank is returning more than 13,000 acres of wetlands to their natural and historical condition, which increases the quality of habitat for migratory birds in South Florida.
On the west coast, FPL donated an 18 acre island on the Caloosahatchee River to the USFWS. This island, with a unique mix of fresh and saltwater native vegetation, provides roosting and forage potential to a host of avian species. FPL maintains over 20,000 acres of cooling ponds and canals through out Florida to provide heat exchange for its power plants. Over the years, these cooling systems have proven to provide excellent habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, and various raptors. Bald eagles have
47 Avian Protection Plan 2007
nested near the cooling systems since construction, and have reproduced successfully since the early 1970’s.
Florida Scrub-Jays – FPL has Scrub Management Plan for Brevard and Volusia County (FPL 2004) that provides an established procedure for managing scrub habitat within transmission corridors to benefit Florida Scrub-jays and other species such gopher tortoises. The plan’s objectives are to: • Maintain vegetation with transmission corridors to reduce the threat of wildfires • Continue to persistence of scrub-jay populations along the corridors • Restore and maintain biological diversity of the scrub ecosystem within the corridors • Develop a rotating maintenance system for the scrub oak habitat with a 5-7 year cycle
FPL has integrated management activities that have been used to manage scrub habitat at Kennedy Space Center with their need to maintain transmission corridors to reduce potential wildfires. These include the removal of slash and sand pine, exotic vegetation, and patches of oaks to open up habitat for scrub-jays. These management activities will be conducted using mechanical techniques and rubber tired equipment to minimize environmental disturbance within the corridors.
Osprey Nest Platforms When Osprey nests are removed from transmission and distribution structures, FPL provides a replacement nesting structure following FWC’s recommended Osprey platform design (FWC 2004b). This helps ensure that Osprey populations will not decline as a result of nest removals and it reduces the likelihood that the birds will rebuild their nests on the same structures.
Cooperative Partnerships FPL has been an active participant in the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) since its inception. This involvement has included assisting in development of the Avian Protection Plan Guidelines (APLIC and USFWS 2005), Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection in Power Lines (2006 revision), and Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines (APLIC 1994).
FPL has a relationship with Busch Wildlife Sanctuary in which FPL uses the Sanctuary’s wildlife hospital to care for sick or injured birds that are found in the FPL service territory.
FPL funded research conducted by the Miami Museum of Science Falcon Batchelor Bird of Prey Center to assist in the development of bird perch discourager devices for transmission line structures. Prior to 1997, approximately 45% of transmission line outages were classified as unknown. The research revealed that these outages coincided with the southerly migration of avian species, as well as streamer and excrement contamination. Countermeasures were investigated and prototype bird discourages were
48 Avian Protection Plan 2007 developed and tested. The resulting bird discouragers are now successfully used throughout the Florida Power & Light service territory.
49 Avian Protection Plan 2007
13. QUALITY CONTROL
FPL has an Environmental Audit team in place. The audit team will conduct an audit every three years to ensure that FPL is adhering to this APP. This team will also ensure that the APP is continually updated. FPL also has an Environmental Management System and Environmental Assurance Program in place.
Environmental Management System FPL established an environmental management system to direct and control the fulfillment of the organization’s environmental responsibilities. A key component of the system is an Environmental Assurance Program that is discussed below. Other components include: executive management support and commitment, written environmental policies and procedures, delineation of organizational responsibilities and individual accountabilities, allocation of appropriate resources for environmental compliance management (which includes reporting and corrective action when non- compliance occurs), environmental incident/emergency response, environmental risk assessment/management, environmental regulatory development and tracking, and environmental management information systems.
Environmental Assurance Program FPL’s Environmental Assurance Program consists of activities which are designed to evaluate environmental performance, verify compliance with Company policy as well as with legal and regulatory requirements, and communicate results to corporate management. The principal mechanism for pursuing environmental assurance is the environmental audit. An environmental audit may be defined as a management tool comprising a systematic, documented, periodic, and objective evaluation of the performance of the organization and of the specific management systems and equipment designed to protect the environment. The environmental audit’s primary objectives are to: facilitate management control of environmental practices and assess compliance with existing environmental regulatory requirements and Company policies.
50 Avian Protection Plan 2007
14. PUBLIC AWARENESS
FPL is involved in many efforts to enhance environmental protection through the facilitation of environmental awareness and public education, including: • Offering an array of information to schools, community groups and individuals about how it does business and the environmental issues we all care about. • Soliciting the views of community members before it undertakes major electric system expansion or upgrade projects. • Environmental projects undertaken are driven by a strong network of employee volunteers. • Donating land and implementing a number of innovative programs to aid local conservation and recreation activities. • Working in partnership with community groups to preserve and enhance recreational opportunities as it grows its business.
FPL's endangered species education programs offer free educational books and brochures on several listed species. Over 110,000 pieces of environmental literature have been distributed to local, State, and Federal agencies as well as customers and public and private institutions.
In addition, FPL has an environmental website with information, resources, and links (http://www.fpl.com/environment/contents/index.shtml). Visited over 195,000 times, this website includes information on Bald Eagles, Wood Storks, FPL’s Barley Barber Swamp, as well as invasive exotic species such as the European Starling and Monk Parakeet.
51 Avian Protection Plan 2007
15. KEY RESOURCES
15.1. FPL Environmental Contacts
Name Area of Responsibility Location Phone Number Cell Phone Cheryl Evans PS AEC North 386-947-6171 386-229-3008 Jack Alexander PS AEC North 386-947-6170 386-547-8070 Dan Rawson PS AEC East 561-845-3344 561-662-7540 Sky Whang PS AEC East 561-681-3135 561-818-5201 Doug Macke PS AEC Broward 954-926-1739 954-410-4367 Rufus Hoggan PS Principal Env. Spec Broward 954-321-2108 954-410-4366 Leroy Hubbs PS Supv Env Ops Dade 305-228-5230 305-586-6119 Jeff James PS AEC Dade 305-228-5231 305-439-0948 David Witte PS AEC West 941-316-6326 941-650-2482 Pete Andreasen PS AEC West 239-332-91218 239-691-0647 Beverly Musser PS Env. Specialist State/Distribution 954-321-2183 954-410-4956 Andrew Daugherty PS Env. Specialist State 954-321-2114 954-410-0124 Gregg Hall PS Sr. Env. Specialist State/Transmission 561-694-3284 Grace Couret PS Principal Engineer State/Transmission 561-691-7367 Jim Lindsay JES Principal Env. Spec State/Juno 561-691-7032 561-762-1296 Stacy Foster JES Env. Specialist State/Juno 561-691-7065 772-285-5653 David Niebch Lab Tech St. Lucie 772-467-7316 Bob Bertelson Plant Supervisor Turkey Point 305-246-6166 Willie Welch PGD Leader I Martin 772-597-7211 Kelly Scott PGD Leader III Cape Canaveral 321-637-2252 Christian Kiernan PGD Sr. Leader Ft. Lauderdale 954-797-1338 Bernie Tibble PGD Leader I Ft. Myers 239-693-4390 Christian Kiernan PGD Leader II Port Everglades 954-527-3507 Mary Maxwell PGD Leader II Manatee 941-776-5278 Gary Andersen PGD Leader I Cutler/Turkey 305-242-3826 Fossil/Turkey 5 Howard Cosgrove PGD Sr. Leader Riviera 561-845-3103 Randy Hopkins PGD Sr. Leader Sanford 386-575-5385 Mark Studley PGD Principal Leader Putnam 386-329-4658 Darrell King PS Sr. Engineer Substations 561-694-4052 Jerry McMullan PS Principal Engineer Engineering 561-845-4837
52 Avian Protection Plan 2007
15.2. Outside Experts
Federal Protected Species Issues
US Fish and Wildlife Service North Florida Field Office 6620 Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310 Jacksonville, FL 32216-0958 Phone: 904-232-2580 Fax: 904-232-2404
US Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: 772-562-3909 Fax: 772-562-4288
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement 20501 Independence Blvd Groveland, Fl 34736 Phone: 352-429-1037 Fax: 352-429-1064
State Protected Species Issues
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building Angela Williams 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Phone: 850-921-5990 X 17310 Fax: 850-921-1847
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Northwest Region Lt. Col. Louie Roberson, Regional Director 3911 Hwy. 2321 Panama City, FL 32409-1658 (850) 265-3676 24-Hour Law Enforcement: (850) 245-7710
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission North Central Region Rolando Garcia, Regional Director 3377 E. US Highway 90 Lake City, FL 32055-8795 (386) 758-0525
53 Avian Protection Plan 2007
24-Hour Law Enforcement: 386-758-0529
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Northeast Region Dennis David, Regional Director 1239 S.W. 10th Street Ocala, FL 34474-2797 (352) 732-1225 24-Hour Law Enforcement: 352-732-1228
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Southwest Region Greg Holder, Regional Director 3900 Drane Field Road Lakeland, FL 33811-1299 (863) 648-3203 24-Hour Law Enforcement: 863-648-3200
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission South Region Chuck Collins, Regional Director 8535 Northlake Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33412 (561) 625-5122 24-Hour Law Enforcement: 561-625-5122
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Monroe and Collier County 24-Hour Law Enforcement: 305-289-2320
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Gainesville Wildlife Research Laboratory 4005 South Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Phone: (352) 955-2230 Fax: (352) 376-5359
Wildlife Control Issues
USDA/APHIS/WS/NWRC Florida Field Station 2820 E. University Ave. Gainesville, FL 32641 Phone: (352) 375-2229 Fax: (352) 377-5559
54 Avian Protection Plan 2007
15.3. Publications APLIC. 1994. “Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994.” This document contains biological and ecological information on birds and bird behavior relevant to collisions, information on habitat, land use and power line modifications, and an extensive bibliography.
APLIC. 2006. “Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines.” A definitive publication on mitigating raptor electrocutions.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). 1993. Guide for Animal Deterrents for Electric Power Supply Substations. Provides information regarding animals and the problems they cause in electric power supply substations. The guide documents methods and designs to mitigate interruptions and equipment damage resulting from animal access into electric power supply substations, thereby improving reliability, minimizing associated revenue loss, and minimizing animal mortalities.
Southern Engineering Company. 2006. Animal-caused Outages. Focused on understanding and preventing animal-caused outages. It describes common problems for transmission, distribution, and substation systems, animals involved, and available products and techniques for minimizing animal-caused Outages this includes information on mammals as well as birds. Most other reference compilations relate to avian interactions with utility structures. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and is presently under revision.
55 Avian Protection Plan 2007
16. DEFINITIONS
Active Nest – Nest that contains either eggs or young
Endangered Species – (Federal) The classification provided to an animal or plant in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (State) Listing of species is essential to prevent imminent extinction. It is unlawful to pursue, molest, harm, harass, capture, possess, or sell a State listed endangered species.
Inactive Nest – Nest that does not contain eggs or young.
Listed Species – (Federal) A species, subspecies, or distinct vertebrate population segment that has been added to the Federal lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants as they appear in sections 17.11 and 17.12 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12).
Migratory Bird – Any bird, whatever its origin and whether or not raised in captivity, which belongs to a species listed in 50 CFR § 10.13, or which is a mutation or a hybrid of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof. The majority of bird species in the U.S. are considered to be migratory and protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, except for introduced species, such as the house sparrow, European starling, rock pigeon, and monk parakeet and some game species, such as the ring-necked pheasant.
Nest – Any readily identifiable structure built, maintained, or occupied for incubating and rearing of protected species offspring. Nests can be found on the ground, in trees, or on structures. See also inactive nest and active nest.
Outage – The state of a component or part of a power system that is not available for service because of some event associated with the component of power system.
Possession – Detention and control of a protected species. This includes picking up or handling of any migratory bird, as defined above. This may also include moving or transporting.
Primary zone around bald eagle nest – (up to 750 feet) In this zone there is not any work on structures other that patrols without notification to USFWS. Maintenance is scheduled for outside of nesting season. FPL has a map with the location of eagle nest in relation to our facilities.
Protected Species – Any bird listed as a Federal endangered or threatened species found in 50 CFR § 17.11 and § 17.12 and on the list of migratory birds found in 50 CFR § 10.13. Bird species listed as endangered or threatened by the FWC also are protected.
56 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Salvage Permit – A permit issued by the USFWS that authorizes the permittee to retrieve birds found dead in which the permittee had no part in the killing or death thereof.
Secondary zones around bald eagle nests – (750 to1500 feet) Maintenance can occur during nesting season and new construction can occur outside of nesting season.
Species of Special Concern (SSC) – State Species that for a number of reasons may become threatened in the future. It is unlawful to take, possess, transport, or sell a State listed species of special concern.
Take (Migratory Birds) – To pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture (alive or dead), or to attempt to engage in such conduct.
Take (Federal Endangered/Threatened Birds) – To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (alive or dead), or to attempt to engage in such conduct. Take includes habitat degradation.
Take (Eagles) – To pursue, hunt, shoot, shoot at, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or molest or disturb (alive or dead), or to attempt to engage in such conduct.
Threatened Species – (Federal) The classification provided to an animal or plant likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (State) Listing of species is essential to prevent likelihood of becoming endangered. It is unlawful to take, possess, transport, molest, harass, or sell a State listed threatened species.
57 Avian Protection Plan 2007
17. LITERATURE CITED
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington D.C. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation. Washington, D.C. 125 pp. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). In Press. 2006 Revision of Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines. Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation. Washington, D.C. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Avian Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines. Edison Electric Institute/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 84 pp. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. [Accessed 2005]. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act [Internet]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/baldegl.html Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). [Accessed 2006]. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 50 Wildlife and Fisheries [Internet]. Available from: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text- idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title50/50cfr10_main_02.tpl Earthlife. [Accessed 2005]. Bird Flight [Internet]. Available from: http://www.earthlife.net/birds/flight.html Endangered Species Act (ESA). [Accessed 2005]. Endangered Species Act [Internet]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa.html Ewel, J.J. 1990. Introduction. IN: Ecosystems of Florida. R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel (eds). University of Central Florida Press. Florida Administrative Code. [Accessed 2005]. Florida Administrative Code [Internet]. Florida Department of State. Available from: http://fac.dos.state.fl.us Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act (Florida Statute 372.072). [Accessed 2005]. 2005 Florida Statutes. The Florida Senate. Available from: http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2004a. Florida’s endangered species, threatened species, and species of special concern [PDF on Internet]. Available from: http://myfwc.com/imperiledspecies/pdf/Endangered- Threatened-Special-Concern-2004.pdf Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2004b. [Revised 2004 Sept 30, Accessed 2005]. Osprey nest removal policies [PDF on Internet]. Available from: http://myfwc.com/permits/Protected-Wildlife/policy/osprey_policies.pdf
58 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. [Accessed 2005]. Eagles in Florida: Eagle Nest Locator [Internet]. Available from: http://wildflorida.org/eagle/default.htm Florida Ornithological Society 2003. Florida Ornithological Society Checklist of the Birds of Florida [Internet]. Available from: http://www.fosbirds.org Florida Power & Light Company (FPL). 2004. FPL Scrub Habitat Management Plan. Prepared by Cotleur & Hearing, Inc. FPL. Juno Beach, Florida. 7 pp. Florida Power & Light Company. [Accessed 2005]. FPL: Our Environmental [Internet]. Available from: http://www.fpl.com/environment/contents/index.shtml Florida Statutes. 2005. The Florida Statutes, Part III [PDF on Internet] Available from: http://myfwc.com/codebook/2003/part3_new.pdf Forrester, D. and M. Spaulding. 2003. Parasites and Disease of Wild Birds in Florida. The University Press of Florida, Gainesville, 1132 pages Lee County Government. [Accessed 2005]. Protected Species [Internet]. Available from: http://www.lee-county.com/dcd/Environmental/ProtectedSpecies.htm Mealey, B.L., E. Bugallo, and C. Pages. 2004. Raptor Deterrents on Transmission Lines in Florida. International Conference on Utility Line Structures. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). [Accessed 2005]. Migratory Bird Treaty Act [Internet]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html Peterson, R.T. 1980. Eastern Birds, Peterson Field Guides. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Sibley, D.A. 2000. National Audubon Society The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. Smith, S.K. 2005 [Accessed Jan 2006]. Florida Population Growth: Past, Present and Future [PDF on Internet]. Available from: http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/Articles/FloridaPop2005.pdf Terres, J.K. 1991. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. 1109 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 pp. Wheeler, B.K. and W.S. Clark. 1995. A photographic guide to North American raptors. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, California 198 pp.
59 Avian Protection Plan 2007
18. APPENDICES
Appendix A. Federal and State Listed Bird Species The following list identifies birds found in the FPL service area that are listed as Threatened, Endangered, or Species of Special Concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (FWC 2004a).
Protected Bird Species Found in the FPL Service Area Species Federal Status (USFWS) State Status (FWC) Piping plover Threatened Threatened Snowy plover (Cuban snowy Threatened plover) American oystercatcher Species of Special Concern Brown pelican Species of Special Concern Black skimmer Species of Special Concern Least tern Threatened Roseate tern Threatened Limpkin Threatened Threatened Reddish egret Species of Special Concern Snowy egret Species of Special Concern Little blue heron Species of Special Concern Tricolored heron Species of Special Concern White ibis Species of Special Concern Florida sandhill crane Threatened Whooping crane Species of Special Concern Wood stork Endangered Endangered Roseate spoonbill Species of Special Concern Burrowing owl Species of Special Concern Crested caracara Threatened Threatened Peregrine falcon Endangered Southeastern American kestrel Threatened Bald eagle Threatened Threatened, Osprey Species of Special Concern Snail kite Endangered Endangered Florida scrub-jay Threatened Threatened Cape Sable seaside sparrow Endangered Endangered Florida grasshopper sparrow Endangered Endangered Scott’s seaside sparrow Species of Special Concern Wakulla seaside sparrow Species of Special Concern White-crowned pigeon Threatened Kirtland’s warbler Endangered Bachman’s warbler Endangered Ivory-billed woodpecker Endangered Endangered Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered Species of Special Concern Marian’s marsh wren Species of Special Concern Worthington’s marsh wren Species of Special Concern
60 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix B. Florida Scientific Collecting Permit
61 Avian Protection Plan 2007
62 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix C. Federal Special Purpose Salvage Permit
63 Avian Protection Plan 2007
64 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix D. Migratory Bird Nest Removal
65 Avian Protection Plan 2007
66 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix D-1. USFWS Depredation Permit
67 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix E. FWC Osprey Nest Removal Policies
68 Avian Protection Plan 2007
69 Avian Protection Plan 2007
70 Avian Protection Plan 2007
71 Avian Protection Plan 2007
72 Avian Protection Plan 2007
73 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix F. Bird Species Field Identification Guide
74 Avian Protection Plan 2007
75 Avian Protection Plan 2007
76 Avian Protection Plan 2007
77 Avian Protection Plan 2007
78 Avian Protection Plan 2007
79 Avian Protection Plan 2007
80 Avian Protection Plan 2007
81 Avian Protection Plan 2007
82 Avian Protection Plan 2007
83 Avian Protection Plan 2007
84 Avian Protection Plan 2007
85 Avian Protection Plan 2007
86 Avian Protection Plan 2007
87 Avian Protection Plan 2007
88 Avian Protection Plan 2007
89 Avian Protection Plan 2007
90 Avian Protection Plan 2007
91 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix G. FPL Avian Interaction Form
92 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix G-1. FPL Avian Nest Relocation/Removal Form
93 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix H. FWC Licensed Wildlife Rehabilitators (Peninsular Florida)
Name and Contact Information County Restrictions Miller, Dawn...... Alachua Sunset Meadows Country Animal Clinic 15114 Northwest 32nd Avenue Newberry, FL 32669 Phone 1 : 352-332-3063
Rooney, Elijah...... Alachua Rehabber 10507 SW 85th Place Gainesville, Florida 32608 Phone 1 : (352) 372-4884
Russell, Kathleen S...... Alachua Santa Fe Community College Teaching Zoo 3000 Northwest 83rd Street Gainesville, FL 32606 Phone 1 : (352) 395-5604 Phone 2 : 352-395-5605
Campbell, Janice F...... Brevard Coon's Run Wildlife Sanctuary Inc. 1010 Santa Rosa Drive Rockledge, FL 32955 Phone 1 : (321) 632-9582 Phone 2 : 321-504-7538
Cashe, Diana...... Brevard Nature's Haven 1637 Sue Drive Cocoa, FL 32922 Phone 1 : (321) 632-8545
Chandler, Patricia Ann...... Brevard Florida Wildlife Hospital 3496 Sparrow Court Melbourne, FL 32935 Phone 1 : (321)254-8843
Loll, Patricia C...... Brevard 271 Fay Drive Indialantic, FL 32903 Phone 1 : (321) 727-3787 Phone 2 : (321) 431-3857
Mederer, Hyta...... Brevard Florida Wildlife Hosp. & Sanct. 3980 Turkey Point Drive Melbourne, FL 32934 Phone 1 : 321-698-0938 Phone 2 : (407) 242-7328
94 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Small, Susan...... Brevard Florida Wildlife Hospital and Sanctuary 4560 North U. S. Hwy 1 Melborne, FL 32935 Phone 1 : 321-254-8843 Fax Phone : 321-255-2213
Sypien, Jennifer...... Brevard Coon's Run Wildlife 4960 Palm Ave. Cocoa, FL 32926 Phone 1 : 321-269-0198 Phone 2 : 321-385-5149
Sypien, Paul...... Brevard Coon's Run Wildlife 4960 Palm Ave. Cocoa, FL 32926 Phone 1 : 321-269-0198 Phone 2 : 321-385-5149 Westphal, Jacqueline M...... Brevard Village Animal Hospital and Bird Clinic 1340 Palm Bay Road Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Phone 1 : (321) 255-6572
Wise, Christine...... Brevard Wildlife At Heart Rehab. 12 Forrell Avenue Titusville, FL 32796 Phone 1 : (321) 403-2732
Olejarski, Eileen...... Brevard Florida Wildlife Hospital 262 Marion Street Indian Harbour Beach, FL 32937 Phone 1 : (407) 254-8843 Phone 2 : 321-508-1911
Oliver, Crystal Lee...... Brevard 1355 Malabar Road Malabar, FL 32950 Phone 1 : 321-426-5489
Karpouskas, Valerie L...... Broward Wildlife Critter Care, Inc. P. O. Box 81-3539 2800 S. W. 73rd Way #1605/Davie/33314 Hollywood, FL 33081-3539 Phone 1 : 602-237-3385
95 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Kochinsky, Lyle...... Broward Everglades Habitat Preservation Incorporated Post Office Box 201 Dania, Florida 33004-0201 Phone 1 : (305) 681-6329
Kohl, Joan F...... Broward Sawgrass Nature Center & Wildlife Hospital SR-024 3916 Northwest 73rd Avenue Coral Springs, Florida 3306 Phone 1 : 954/752-7732
LaRose, Judy C...... Broward Wildlife Care Center 3200 Southwest 4th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315-3019 Phone 1 : (954) 524-4302 Phone 2 : (954) 524-7464
Nograd, Vered...... Broward 7907 NorthWest 67TH Avenue Tamarac, FL 33321 Phone 1 : (954) 726-9869 Fax Phone : 954/557-0789
Poggi, Michael...... Broward Rare Exotics 11365 Earnest Boulevard Davie, Florida 33325 Phone 1 : (954)236-3788
Rohkamm, Cynthia...... Broward 2821 Northeast 45th Street Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Phone 1 : (954) 942-6798
Rubio, Freda...... Broward Wildlife Care Center WMT#290 11277 NW 15 Place 3200 Southwest 4th Avenue Pembroke Pines, FL 33026 Phone 1 : 954-447-7095 Phone 2 : 954-524-7464
Sayre, Jessica...... Broward Wildlife Care Center 3200 S. W. 4th Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315 Phone 1 : 954-524-4302
96 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Schrager, Michael...... Broward State Wildlife Rescue 9421 SW 51 Place Cooper City, FL 33328 Phone 1 : (954) 680-1655
Caron, Peter Octane...... Charlotte Octagon Sequence of Eight 41660 Horseshoe Road Punta Gorda, FL 33955 Phone 1 : (941) 543-1130
Graham, Margaret...... Charlotte Rehabber Peace River Wildlife Center 1336 Sea Horse Ct. Punta Gorda, FL 33950 Phone 1 : 941-639-8068
Fiore, Cynthia...... Charlotte The Peace River Wildlife Center 3400 West Marion Avenue Punta Gorda, FL 33950 Phone 1 : (941) 637-3830
Hilton, Judith a...... Charlotte 22123 Malone Ave. Port Charlotte, FL 33952 Phone 1 : 941-627-0990
Rhodin, Lisa...... Charlotte 3400 West Marion Avenue Ponce De Leon Park Punta Gorda, FL 33950 Phone 1 : (941) 637-3830
Kupcho, Meredith...... Citrus P.O. Box 193 6435 W. Craft Lane, 34448 Homosassa, Inverness, Florida 34451 Phone 1 : 352-621-0821
Mick, Diane...... Citrus Mick, Diane 9880 North Misty-Janell Terrace Crystal River, Florida 34428 Phone 1 : (352)564-8152
Nayfield, D.V.M., K. C...... Citrus Midway Animal Hospital 1635 South Suncoast Boulevard Homosassa, FL 34448 Phone 1 : (352) 795-7110
97 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Nelson, Robert W...... Citrus 11006 West Cove Harbor Drive Crystal River, FL 34428 Phone 1 : (352) 795-3278
Welzant, Linda...... Clay Clay County Humane Society 2230 Filmore Street Orange Park, FL 32065 Phone 1 : (904) 276-7729
Waldren, Vicki and Roger...... Columbia Critter Care 20822 49th Drive Lake City, FL 32024-2214 Phone 1 : 386-935-3985
Kelton, Harry V...... Dade Pelican Harbor Seabird Station 1275 NE 79th Street Causeway Miami, FL 33138 Phone 1 : (305) 751-9840
Knox, Patricia...... Dade Wee Care Wildlife Rehab. 15390 S. W. 269 Terrace Homestead, FL 33032 Phone 1 : (305) 248-0947
Mealey, Brian K...... Dade Miami Museum of Science 3280 South Miami Avenue Miami, FL 33129 Phone 1 : (305) 858-8353 Fax Phone : (305)285-5801
Miller, DVM, Christine...... Dade Rehabber Miami Metrozoo 12400 SW 152 Street Miami, FL 33177-1499 Phone 1 : 305-251-0400 Fax Phone : 305-378-6381
Radcliffe, Roy...... Dade Humane Society of Greater Miami 2101 N.W. 95th Street Miami, Florida 33147-2597 Phone 1 : 786/924-5222 Fax Phone : 305/696-4434
Sykes, Cary W...... Dade Rehabber 9450 SW 180 St. SR-078 Miami, FL 33157 Phone 1 : 305-969-3819
98 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Parrot, John D...... Dade Animal House Calls 2455 Northeast 184th Terra Miami, Florida 33160 Phone 1 : (305) 935-3715
Perez, Michael a...... Dade Miami Museum of Science 3280 South Miami Avenue Miami, FL 33129 Phone 1 : 305-646-4244 Phone 2 : 305-646-4200 Fax Phone : 305-646-4300
Stoddard, Hank...... Dixie Rehabber Shamrock Veterinary Clinics & Fisheries P O Box 1620 647 SW 10th Street Cross City, FL 32628 Phone 1 : (352) 498-5293 Phone 2 : 352/246-1145 Fax Phone : 352-498-2733
Kapustin, DVM, Nikolay...... Duval Rehabber Jacksonville Zoo and Garden Jacksonville Zoological Society 370 Zoo Parkway Jacksonville, FL 32218 Phone 1 : (904) 757-4463 Fax Phone : (904) 757-4315
Mobley, Mitzi Ginter...... Duval Rehabber 4711 Prince Edward Road Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Phone 1 : 904/381-0579 Phone 2 : 904-381-0507 Fax Phone : 904/635-7841
Myrick, DVM, Tecla B...... Duval 4940 Brighton Drive NCR-025 Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Phone 1 : 904/448-8199
Tidwell, Barbara Y...... Duval 3930 Novaline Lane Jacksonville, FL 32277 Phone 1 : 904-744-8580
Smith, Lora A...... Flagler Post Office Box 307 1000 East Moody Blvd. Bunnell, Florida 32110-0307 Phone 1 : 386-437-2307 Phone 2 : 386-931-1864
99 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Huston, Michael D...... Hamilton Huston Veterinary Clinic Post Office Box 1526 910 N.W. HWY 41 Jasper, FL 32052 Phone 1 : 386-792-3134
Mizell, Kristina E...... Hernando 22300 Hayman Rd. Brooksville, FL 34602 Phone 1 : 352-754-6022
Posey, Patricia C...... Hernando Hernando Wildlife Rescue 6130 Waters Way Spring Hill, Florida 34607-4028 Phone 1 : 352/596-5175
Wrede, Karen R...... Highlands Wrede's Wildlife Center, Inc Rehabilitation 4900 Wilderness Trail Sebring, FL 33875 Phone 1 : (863) 385-2770
Bond, Deborah...... Hillsborough 410 Floriland Drive Tampa, FL 33612 Phone 1 : (813) 932-9545
Burton, Michalle D...... Hillsborough 715 Rosier Road Brandon, Florida 33510 Phone 1 : (813) 684-0143
Busch Entertain., Corporation. Hillsborough Zoo Department Post Office Box 9158 Tampa, FL 33674-9158 Phone 1 : (813) 987-5250 Fax Phone : (813) 987-5548
Czyzowski, Arlene I...... Hillsborough Wildlife Haven 5633 Half Moon Lake Road Tampa, FL 33625 Phone 1 : 813-963-1022 Phone 2 : 813-263-3851
100 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Czyzowski, Arlene I...... Hillsborough Wildlife Haven 5633 Half Moon Lake Road Tampa, FL 33625 Phone 1 : 813-963-1022 Phone 2 : 813-263-3851
Davis, Steven W...... Hillsborough 3216 McIntosh Road Dover, FL 33527 Phone 1 : (813) 689-4075 Phone 2 : (813) 689-3961 Fox, Lee...... Hillsborough Save Our Seabirds, Inc. and Pinellas 840 Third Avenue South 2709 Rt. 579, Wimauma 33598 Tierra Verde, Florida 33715 Phone 1 : (727) 864-0679 Phone 2 : (727) 867-0368 Fax Phone : (727) 251-9640
Grantham, Catheryn G...... Hillsborough Wildlife Center of Tampa Inc. SWR-045 10318 Main Street Thonotosassa, Florida 3359 Phone 1 : 813/986-2314
Hunter, Sharon R...... Hillsborough Noah's Ark Animal Hospital 4338 Bell Shoals Road Valrico, FL 33594 Phone 1 : (813) 662-7275 Fax Phone : 813/662-7285
Topor, DVM, Suzanne...... Hillsborough Livingston Animal & Avian Hospital 15104 Livingston Ave. Lutz, FL 33559 Phone 1 : (813) 979-1955
Young, Glenn...... Hillsborough Busch Gardens 3605 E. Bougainvillea Ave. Tampa, FL 33612-6433
House, Deborah A...... Indian River House of the Feathered, and Furred Orphaned 1550 19th Avenue SW Vero Beach, Florida 32962 Phone 1 : (772) 569-1305 Phone 2 : (407) 567-8000 X 446
101 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Ferguson, Connie...... Lake Friends of Nature Wildlife Refuge 15932 Thoroughbred Lane Montverde, FL 34756 Phone 1 : (407) 469-4602
Finser, Yvonne Rose...... Lake Amazing Exotics 17951 S. E. County Road 4 Umatilla, FL 32784 Phone 1 : 352-636-4058 Phone 2 : (352) 821-1234
Rodgers, Jill...... Lake Rehabber Wildlife Rehabilitation Ctr of Lake County 32435 Averitt Lane Eustis, Florida 32736 Phone 1 : (352) 357-5153 Phone 2 : 352/406-5383
Pendleton, Edith...... Lee 1248 Miracle Lane Fort Myers, FL 33901 Phone 1 : (941) 489-9267
Piper, Mary...... Levy Wildlife Rescue of Levy Co. Inc. 14160 N.E. 51st Place Williston, Florida 32696 Phone 1 : 352/528-2779
Salls, Georgia E...... Madison 1449 N. W. Little Cat Rd. Madison, FL 32340 Phone 1 : (850) 973-4371
Byrd, Larry...... Manatee Rehabber Wildlife, Inc. SWR 110 4651 47th Street 2207 Ave. B, Bradenton Beach, 34217-2256 Sarasota, FL 34235 Phone 1 : 941-351-8759
Fansler, Daniel W...... Manatee Transport only Wildlife Rescue Service 1111 Hagel Park Bradenton, FL 34222 Phone 1 : 941-720-2302
102 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Matthews, Justin...... Manatee Rehabber Matthews Wildlife Rescue 7416 41st. Avenue East Bradenton, FL 34208 Phone 1 : 941-447-5369 Fax Phone : 941-955-0480
Gallagher, Bob...... Marion Rehabber Festival Fun Parks, LLC Db Silver Springs Attraction 5656 East Silver Springs Boulevard Silver Springs, Florida 3448 Phone 1 : (352) 236-2121
Hennessey, Tish...... Marion All Creatures Sanctuary P. O. Box 723 10252 Southeast Highway 464C Ocklawaha, FL 32179 Phone 1 : (352) 288-6754
Kierstein, Lee Evan...... Marion Magnolia Animal Hospital 2019 North Magnolia Avenue Ocala, FL 34475 Phone 1 : (352) 622-7143
Kline, Michele A...... Marion Rehabber 9297 North Kathleen Terrace Dunnellon, FL 34433 Phone 1 : 352-795-5764
Roseman, Pamela...... Marion Rehabber 27 Redwood Track Radial Ocala, Florida 34472 Phone 1 : 352-687-8173 Phone 2 : 352-598-3862
Smith, Russell R...... Marion 3078 Northeast 31 Place Ocala, FL 34479 Phone 1 : (352) 629-6846
Tallman, Carol A...... Marion Friends of the Feathered 7410 Newcastle Court Dunnellon, FL 34433 Phone 1 : (727) 942-8318
Zandman, Anita Diane...... Marion Rehabber Animal Rescue Kingdom NER-063 owned 10561 S. W. 67 Ct. Ocala, FL 34476 Phone 1 : 352-291-1678
103 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Graham, Lori...... Martin Treasure Coast Wildlife Hospital 12914 Southeast Papaya Street Hobe Sound, FL 33455 Phone 1 : (561) 546-4705
Martinelli, Daniel...... Martin Rehabber Treasure Coast Wildlife Hospital 8438 S. W. 48th Ave. Palm City, Florida 34990 Phone 1 : 772/546-8281
Grinter, Kelly C...... Monroe Rehabber Marathon Wild Bird Center, Inc. P. O. Box 501328 9900 E. 63rd Street Marathon, FL 33050 Phone 1 : 305-743-8382
Quinn, Laura B...... Monroe Florida Keys Wild Bird Ctr Rehabilitation 93600 Overseas Highway Tavernier, FL 33070 Phone 1 : (305) 852-4486 Fax Phone : 305-852-3186
Scott, Laura Christine...... Monroe 17229 Oleander Lane Summerland Key, FL 33042 Phone 1 : 305-304-8097 Phone 2 : 305-745-8688
Totman, Maya I...... Monroe Exotic and Wild Bird Rescue of Florida Keys, Inc. 1388 Avenue B Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Phone 1 : (305) 872-1982
Adams, Jeannie… Nassau Rehabber 1774 Mobley Hts. Road NCR-018 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 Phone 1 : 904/321-0378
Arnold, Sue...... Okeechobee Arnold's Wildlife Rehab Inc. 14895 NW 30th Terrace Okeechobee, FL 34972 Phone 1 : (941) 763-4630
104 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Ebenhack, Amanda J...... Okeechobee South Florida Reptile Rescue 2005 N. W. 392nd St. Okeechobee, Florida 34972 Phone 1 : 863-697-6493
Bronzo, James...... Orange Transport 805 Baron Road Only Orlando, FL 32828 Phone 1 : (407) 568-6449 Phone 2 : 897-9756
Flynt, Dianna King...... Orange Audubon Center for Birds of Prey 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Phone 1 : 407/644-0190
Hardee, Ron and Carol...... Orange Rehabber Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Central FL 21117 Reindeer Road Christmas, FL 32709 Phone 1 : (407) 568-3200
Harr, Leona B...... Orange 4621 Lenmore Street Orlando, Florida 32812 Phone 1 : (407) 277-7232
Helsel, Deborah Ann...... Orange Back to Nature Wildlife Refuge 18515 East Colonial Drive Orlando, FL 32820 Phone 1 : (407) 568-5138
Hess, Jr., Robert E...... Orange Winter Park Veterinary Clinic 1601 Lee Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone 1 : (407) 644-2676
Kerivan, Jr., John Michael...... Orange SeaWorld Adventure Park Orlando 7007 Sea World Drive Orlando, FL 32821 Phone 1 : (407) 363-2351
McCorkle, CVT, Carol V...... Orange The Avian Reconditioning Center P. O. Box 296 351 West Lester Road Apopka, Florida 32704 Phone 1 : (407) 461-1056 Phone 2 : 407-880-3239
105 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Neiffer, V.M.D., Donald L...... Orange Rehabber Disney's Animal Kingdom Post Office Box 10000 1200 North Savana Circle East Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830-1000 Phone 1 : (407) 824-3784 Phone 2 : (407) 934-5994
Shaw, Carmen M...... Orange Back To Nature Wildlife Refuge 18515 East Colonial Drive Orlando, FL 32820 Phone 1 : (407) 568-5138 Phone 2 : 407-760-4575
Baranski, Susan...... Palm Beach Susan's Raccoon & Wildlife Rescue 1361 Elmbank Way Royal Palm Beach, FL. 334 Phone 1 : (561) 753-1570 Phone 2 : 954-540-8782 Fax Phone : 561-753-1663
Brown, Kenny...... Palm Beach Transport only 731 N. 5th St., Apt. 1 Lantana, FL 33462
Gradidge, Helenya...... Palm Beach Rehabber McCarthy's Wildlife 17145 61st Pl. North 12943 61st St N., WPB, 33412 Loxahatchee, FL 33470 Phone 1 : 561-827-1000
Hitzig, David...... Palm Beach Busch Wildlife Sanctuary 2500 Jupiter Park Drive Jupiter, FL 33458 Phone 1 : 561-575-3399 Phone 2 : 561-723-1465
Lovett, Keith...... Palm Beach Rehabber Palm Beach Zoo @ Dreher Park Zoo 1301 Summit Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33405-3098 Phone 1 : (561) 533-0887 Phone 2 : (561) 533-0887 Fax Phone : 561-585-6085
106 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Mackey, Daniel...... Palm Beach Folke Peterson Center for Animal Welfare 10948 Acme Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33414 Phone 1 : 561-793-2473 Phone 2 : 954-401-6168 Fax Phone : 561-422-3337
Marks, Jean Marie...... Palm Beach 126 Northwest 11th Avenue Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone 1 : (561) 338-0403 Phone 2 : (305) 524-4302
McCarthy, Mark...... Palm Beach McCarthy's Wildlife Inc. Sanctuary 12943 61st Street North West Palm Beach, FL 3341 Phone 1 : (561) 790-2116 Fax Phone : 561-790-6722
Meyer, Mary Jo...... Palm Beach Milo's Ranch, Inc. P. O. Box 725 16757 Rustic Road Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 Phone 1 : 561/333-9571 Phone 2 : 954-249-7713
Rosenberg, Ellen...... Palm Beach Wildlife Recovery Center 12567 61st Street North Royal Palm Beach, FL 3341 Phone 1 : (561) 793-8075
Szejko, Allyn...... Palm Beach Wildlife Rescue of South Florida 999 Southwest 8th Street Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone 1 : (561) 338-0508 Phone 2 : (561) 419-0028 Fax Phone : (561) 338-0508
Wolf, Terrance F...... Palm Beach Lion Country Safari, Inc. 2003 Lion Country Safari R Loxahatchee, FL 33470-397 Phone 1 : (561) 793-1084 E 350
107 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Rich, Mary E. (Beth)...... Pasco Wildlife Haven 36906 Christan Road Dade City, Florida 33523 Phone 1 : 352-457-1369 Phone 2 : (352) 518-9443 Fax Phone : 813-732-2002
Stearns, Kathryn P...... Pasco Stearns Zoological Rescue Rehab 36909 Blanton Road Dade City, Florida 33523 Phone 1 : (352)567-3418 Phone 2 : 813-714-2555 Fax Phone : 352-567-2579
Zablo, Lynn...... Pasco 13214 Blissfield Rd. 13220 Blissfield Rd. Odessa, FL 33556 Phone 1 : 813-358-0205 Phone 2 : 813-310-9363
Barhorst, Lynda A...... Pinellas Sky Harbor, Inc. 861 E. Klosterman Rd. PMB #12 603 Ivey Lane Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689-3927 Phone 1 : (727) 934-6829 Phone 2 : 727-424-9644
Chaboudy, Rick...... Pinellas Ken Johnson Humane Society of Pinellas 3040 State Road 590 Clearwater, FL 33759 Phone 1 : (727) 797-7722 Fax Phone : (727) 796-5527
Cianciolo, DVM, Janine M...... Pinellas Clearwater Marine Aquarium Inc. 249 Windward Passage Clearwater, Florida 33764-2244 Phone 1 : (727)441-1790 Phone 2 : 727-638-6046 Fax Phone : 727-447-4922
Hannameyer, Sally C...... Pinellas Safe Haven Wildlife Center, Inc. SWR-020 1216 Bell Drive Clearwater, Florida 33764-4858 Phone 1 : 727/449-8176
108 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Heath, Ralph T...... Pinellas Rehabber Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary, Inc. 18328 Gulf Boulevard Indian Shores, FL 33785-20 Phone 1 : (727) 391-6211 Phone 2 : 727-391-7962
Lutz, James D...... Pinellas SPCA of Pinellas County 9099-130th Avenue North Largo, FL 33773 Phone 1 : (727) 586-3591
Odland, DVM, Steven...... Pinellas The Woodlands Animal Hospital 3880 Tampa Road Oldsmar, Florida 34677 Phone 1 : (800) 850-7000 Phone 2 : 813-855-8888
Perry, Diane...... Pinellas Feline, Avian & Exotic Animal Hospital 427 Broadway (ALT19) Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone 1 : (727) 735-0500
Yates, Vernon E...... Pinellas Wildlife Rescue and Inc. Rehabilitation 9500 82nd Avenue North Seminole, FL 33777 Phone 1 : (727) 399-1525 Fax Phone : 727/319-4121
Fox, Lee...... Pinellas and Save Our Seabirds, Inc. Hillsborough 840 Third Avenue South 2709 Rt. 579, Wimauma 33598 Tierra Verde, Florida 33715 Phone 1 : (727) 864-0679 Phone 2 : (727) 867-0368 Fax Phone : (727) 251-9640
Allaway, Kim...... Polk Genesis Zoological Center 747 Howard Road Auburndale, Florida 33823 Phone 1 : (863) 965-8706
Baskin, Carole...... Polk Big Cat Rescue 12802 Easy Street Tampa, FL 33625 Phone 1 : (813) 920-4130
109 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Schotman, Thomas B...... Polk Lake Wales Veterinary Hospital 520 Mt. Lake Cut Off Road Lake Wales, FL 33859 Phone 1 : (813) 676-1451 Fax Phone : 863/676-0142
Cain-Stage, Melanie...... St. Johns Rehabber H.A.W.K.E. Post Office Box 188 5285 St. Ambrose Church Elkton, FL 32033 Phone 1 : (904) 692-1777 Fax Phone : (904) 501-2291
Inman, Karen A...... St. Johns St. Johns Wildlife Care, Inc. 5705 County Road 208 St. Augustine, FL 32092 Phone 1 : 904-829-9210 Phone 2 : 904-829-8291
Lynch, Karen...... St. Johns Rehabber The ARIC Wildlife Rescue Rehab. 335 Sunset Drive St. Augustine, Florida 3208 Phone 1 : (904) 471-0336 Fax Phone : 904/808-4333
Sweeney, Linda J...... St. Johns Rehabber 2268 Shore Drive NER 076 St. Augustine, FL 32086 Phone 1 : 904-797-1691
Burns, Wyn Varcoe...... St. Lucie Creature Safe Place 4500 McCarty Road Ft. Pierce, FL 34945 Phone 1 : 772-468-6616
Eger, Rosmarie H...... St. Lucie Kindness Animal Hospital 761 SE Port St Lucie Boulevard Port St. Lucie, FL 34984 Phone 1 : (561) 878-0100 Fax Phone : (561) 878-2943
Harsh, Debra...... St. Lucie Transport only Wildlife Rehabilitation Center & Refuge Inc. 500 Easy Street Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 Phone 1 : (561) 484-6546 Phone 2 : (561) 334-4277
110 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Gooding, Mary...... Sarasota 4360 Lubec Ave. North Port, Florida 34287 Phone 1 : 941-423-9268
Landess, DVM, Jack...... Sarasota Nokomis Veterinary Clinic 405 W. Albee Rd. Nokomis, FL 34275 Phone 1 : (941) 484-2485
Pierson, Edwin L...... Sarasota Amber Lake Wildlife Refuge & Rehab. Ctr 297 Artists Avenue Englewood, FL 34223 Phone 1 : (813) 475-4585
Sewell, Sheila...... Sarasota Rehabber Pelican Man's Bird Sanctuary SWR 116 702 51st Street, Apt. 110A 1708 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34236 Bradenton, FL 34208 Phone 1 : 941-524-6583 Phone 2 : 941-388-4444
Isner, Mary Jane...... Seminole Haven for Injured & Orphaned Wildlife 610 Birch Boulevard Altamonte Springs, FL 3270 Phone 1 : (407) 260-6137
Sattler, Susan Kaye...... Seminole Rehabber 2441 Mills Creek Road Chuluota, FL 32766 Phone 1 : 407-359-6548
Young, Mary Ann...... Seminole Ann Young Wildbird Refuge 205 Robin Road Altamonte Springs, FL 3270 Phone 1 : (407) 339-2900
Carter, Judith...... Sumter LaGuardar, Inc. 4966 County Rd. 656 Webster, FL 33597 Phone 1 : (352) 793-3094 Fax Phone : (352) 793-8792
111 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Davis, Sandra Renee'...... Suwannee Suwannee River Rescue 7130 112th Terrace Live Oak, FL 32060 Phone 1 : (386) 364-7058
Greene, Brenda...... Suwannee Rehabber 16369 8th Terrace Live Oak, FL 32060 Phone 1 : 386-842-5029
Riordan, Jeanette Christine.... Suwanee 14872 49th Lane McAlpen, FL 32062 Phone 1 : 386-208-0742
Anthony, Jackie and Michelle. Volusia Wildlife Rehabilitation of Daytona Bch, Inc 170 Lakeside East Port Orange, FL 32128 Phone 1 : (386) 767-2500 Phone 2 : (386) 274-1245
Burke, Pat A...... Volusia Halifax Humane Society Inc P. O. Box 9035 2364 LPGA Blvd. At I-95 Daytona Beach, FL 32120-9035 Phone 1 : (386) 274-4703 Fax Phone : 386-274-4710
Kanfer, Donald...... Volusia Woodland Animal Clinic 1501 South Woodland Boulevard DeLand, FL 32720-770801 Phone 1 : (904) 734-1763
Keller, Mary A...... Volusia 1216 Deneece Terrace Holly Hill, FL 32117 Phone 1 : (386) 252-2794
Weaver, Debralea...... Volusia Rehabber 947 Essex Rd. Daytona Beach, FL 32117 Phone 1 : 386-257-3467 Phone 2 : 386-274-3460
112 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Wise, Christine...... Volusia Marine Science Center 100 Lighthouse Dr. 4965 S. Peninsula Dr. Ponce Inlet, FL 32127 Phone 1 : 386-304-5530
Snyder, Dee Ann...... Volusia 840 Samms Avenue Port Orange, FL 32119 Phone 1 : (386)295-7407
113 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix I. Scrub Habitat Management Agreement with USFWS
114 Avian Protection Plan 2007
115 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix J. Burrowing Owl Protection Guidelines and Procedures
116 Avian Protection Plan 2007
117 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix K. SAP and KDS – Employee Training Tracking Systems
SAP (System Application and Products) is the method FPL Power Systems uses to track their employee training for Transmission, Distribution and Substations. Employees are trained annually or as new employees arrive on avian and environmental issues that occur in the FPL system. The Area Managers or Training Coordinator input the training records into the SAP for tracking.
KDS (Knowledge Delivery System) is the method Power Generation Business Unit uses to educate and track environmental training.
118 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Appendix L. Eagle Electrocution Risk Assessment Methodology
NOTE
This document serves as Appendix L for the FPL Avian Protection Plan. Introductory materials regarding bald eagle biology, electrocution mechanisms, and the goals and objectives can be found in the preceding chapters of the APP and are not repeated here.
119 Avian Protection Plan 2007
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the eagle electrocution risk assessment is to assist FPL in identifying high risk electric utility structures and environmentally sensitive bird areas to mitigate risks to bald eagles from electrocution. This information will be utilized by FPL in evaluating the risk of new and existing structures.
The behavioral and structural conditions that create electrocution risk for raptors have been well-studies, particularly in the western US (e.g. APLIC publication 1994, 1996, and 2006). Key factors related to electrocutions are fairly well understood [e.g. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 1994 and 2006; Janss and Ferrer 2000, Lehman 2001]. What has been observed is that electrocution problems occur in very specific localized situations where a combination of power line structural characteristics and specific types of bird usage exists.
Research in the western US, primarily concerned with golden eagles and other raptors, suggests that the spacing of energized parts on structures influences the likelihood of an electrocution event occurring. Energized parts include the phases (e.g. wires), transformers, capacitors, jumper wires, etc. Generally the more equipment and lines on a pole the more energized parts present and the more closely spaced these parts are. This congestion increases the risk for large wingspan birds like raptors but also for medium sized birds (e.g. crows) as well (Pacific Corp 2002).
Biologic and other factors affect the likelihood of an electrocution event occurring including the birds’ behavior and condition, number of birds on the structure, and weather conditions. For example, a group of birds or a wet rain-soaked bird has an increased likelihood of electrical arcing (in which the electricity "jumps" across an open gap to complete the circuit) and cause an electrocution.
In the eastern US, where density is lower and natural perches are more abundant, raptor electrocution in association with the utility structures has been less prevalent. For bald eagles in the Southeastern US electrocution is often associated with nesting. The large nests (>6ft across and weighing up to 1 ton) create increased likelihood of electrocution for several reasons. First, the large structure increases the chances of spanning the gap between energized parts. Second the amount of time spent in association with the nest structure (e.g. building, courtship, incubating, feeding) means that the birds will have many opportunities to encounter a situation in which they have the potential to be in contact with the line or facility. Third, the fledglings from the nest are naive, inexperienced, and less agile than their parents and thus may more readily come into contact with the energized parts especially when first learning to fly. Fourth, the behavior associated with reproductive activities such as courtship, nest building, provisioning the young increase the likelihood of electrocution.
The combination of the “riskiness” level of the bird ecology and the “riskiness” level of the structures creates and overall risk that the birds may be electrocuted by a structure.
120 Avian Protection Plan 2007
It is the spatial interaction between these two risk components that determines the potential risk to the birds. For example, a “high risk” bird situation that is distant from any power structure is a low risk situation regardless of the eagle behavior or intensity of use. A diagrammatic depiction of this relationship is expressed in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Matrix illustrating the interaction between biological-based and structure- based risk.
Structure-derived Risk
Low Medium High
Low Low Low Medium
Medium Low Medium High derived Riski derived - Brd High Low High Very High
II. CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
Electrocution event can only occur when both the bird and the energized structure spatially co-occur. Thus to answer the question of what locations and structures are inherently riskier it is necessary to know: Where are the birds and how are they behaving? Where are the structures and how are they constructed? These spatial questions require a spatial methodology. The conceptual approach is to model the relative electrocution risk by considering the bald eagle biology and the structures present.
The Bald Eagle model is based on work done for SWFWMD to model bald eagle habitat use. Using this previously vetted model as a starting point it was modified to include weights to account for behaviorally-induced and frequency-related risks. The product is a surface grid that expresses the relative risk based on the eagle biology inputs.
The structure model is based on literature review on electrocution risk factors for large raptors. The model is weighted to account for higher risk due to a higher number and greater density of energized parts (Pacific Corp 2002). The product is a surface grid that expresses the relative risk based on the structural inputs.
The electrocution model is the culmination of both the biology and the structural models. The two risk surfaces are added together using raster math (a.k.a. map algebra) to
121 Avian Protection Plan 2007 produce a model of the relative electrocution risk to bald eagles for each of the structures throughout the FPL service area.
Table 2. Avian Risk Factors and Spatial or GIS Depiction Considerations Major Avian Risk Characteristics Potential Spatial or GIS Relationships Structural Engineering Characteristics
Number of phases The number of phases and equipment load on a pole create a measure of the total number of energized parts on a pole. Equipment load on a pole
A surface expressing the structural risk due Structure Density to the regional density of structures. Biological Characteristics Behavior cannot be directly modeled but Behaviors linked to Habitat Conditions. certain habitat conditions are indicators of Behaviors include Nesting, Feeding, behavior. Habitat conditions can be spatial Roosting, and Migration. The behaviors depicted with values assigned based on may be tied to bird age or physiology behavior and frequency and duration of use of the habitat Landscape Factors Distance from habitat
Juxtaposition of habitats to one another Many of the habitat characteristics of interest are Landscape-level factors and Juxtaposition of habitats to surrounding their spatial relationships to each other. For land uses example, the presence of nesting habitat is a useful indicator of behavior if there is Habitat Patch Size and Shape suitable foraging habitat nearby to support this nest. Vegetation Conditions (forested vs. non forested)
III. METHODS
A. Eagle Biology Model In the model four main components of eagle biology and habitat use are considered: primary and secondary nesting and primary and secondary foraging. The base GIS layers for deriving these components is the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission’s 2003 vegetation cover data (FWC 2003) and the FWC’s annual eagle surveys from 1999 through 2003.
122 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Nest locations are essential components in modeling eagle risk due to the type and intensity of activity associated with nesting and also the stability of nest locations through the years. For currently active nests the likelihood that a nest that was used at least once in the previous 4 years is 88 to 92% (Table 2).
Table 3. Florida Bald Eagle Population Status and Nest Fidelity between years Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Active 1012 1043 1089 1098 1117 Inactive 116 133 158 251 352 Unknown 16 30 41 32 21 Total Surveyed 1144 1206 1288 1381 1490 Nest was active in at NA 919 997 1004 1028 Nest Status least 1 of the previous (88%) (92%) (92%) (92%) years.
A.1. Nesting
Primary Nesting Primary nesting habitat is defined as: 1. all blocks of forest habitat currently occupied by nesting eagles and 2. Those forests blocks that are greater than 200 acres and less than 1 km away from a current nest. This second definition identifies those areas that are available if the nest is relocated within the same eagle territory (e.g. if the current nest structure is lost).
The nesting area is the focal area of use by nesting eagles and the young birds from the nests. Some behaviors exhibited within the nesting area are considered higher risk because they may distract the bird and reduce it awareness of its immediate environment (e.g. courtship, nest building, provisioning, anti-predator behaviors, and practice flights of young birds). Other behaviors are considered higher risk because they increase the effective size of the bird and thus increase likelihood of contact - e.g. when carrying a large prey item.
Additionally, the area immediately proximate to the nest is considered higher risk due to the frequency of trip-events in this area and because the adults and offspring spend a disproportionate amount of time within this area. For all of these reasons Primary Nesting is weighted the most heavily of the four biological variables (Table 3).
Secondary Nesting Secondary nesting habitat is defined as all blocks of forested habitat at least 200 acres in size and greater than 3 km of a known nest location. The secondary nesting areas capture the area in which a new (not replacement) eagle nests might be established due to growth of or shifts in the eagle population. Additionally, these areas may be used throughout the year by non-nesting eagles.
123 Avian Protection Plan 2007
If these areas are occupied by nesting eagles in the future they would be reclassed as primary nesting habitat. But since they are not currently occupied by nesting eagles and thus do not have the associated behavioral and usage risk factors, they are not weighted as heavily as Primary Nesting.
A.2. Foraging Suitable foraging habitat defined as blocks of open/semi-open water at least 100 acres in size and at least 50m wide.
Primary Foraging Primary foraging habitat is defined as suitable foraging habitat within 3 km of a known nest location. This is the focal foraging area for nesting eagles and the area most heavily used for foraging. Foraging creates risk because birds are distracted by their pursuit of prey and are effectively larger due to the prey item. Thus Primary Foraging is weighted more heavily than Secondary Foraging.
Secondary Foraging Secondary foraging habitat is defined as suitable foraging habitat greater than 3 km from a known nest location. The secondary foraging areas are too far from known nest locations to be used regularly by nesting eagles but would be expected to be used during the non-nesting season and any time of the year by non-nesting birds. Foraging related risk behaviors such as pursuit of prey and perching with prey may occur in these areas but not as frequently as in Primary Foraging areas so this item is less heavily weighted.
Table 4. Valuation and model weights for the biological model components. Biological Model Components Summary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Nesting Area Nesting Area Foraging Areas Foraging Area and Non- nesting habitat Behaviors Courtship 2 0 0 0 Nest Building 2 0 0 0 Provisioning 2 0 0 0 Young Juvenile 2 0 0 0 Practice Flights Pursuit of Prey 1 1 3 1 Perching with 5 2 5 1 Large Prey Items Total 14 3 8 2 Weights used 5 1 3 1 in the Model
124 Avian Protection Plan 2007
A.3.Eagle Biology Model Output The four layers were weighted and added together using map algebra. The following equation was used to produce the eagle biology risk model:
Biological risk = [(primary nesting*5) + (secondary nesting) + (primary foraging*3) + (secondary foraging)]
The output is a GIS surface for the entire FPL service area that expresses the relative biological risk for the Bald Eagle at a 10m cell resolution.
B. Structure Model
B.1. Structure Load FPL currently maintains over 1.4225 million poles with over 1.67 million pieces of equipment attached (Table 4).
Table 5. Equipment types and number of occurrences. Equipment Type Occurrences Auto Transformer 99 Capacitor 7,176 Fault Indicator 5 OH Auto Switch 343 OH Fuse Switch 141,411 OH Switch 38,029 OH Transformer 453,539 Primary Jumper 18 Primary Meter 125 Recloser 886 Regulator 125 Total 642,986
The primary determinant of structural risk is the number of energized parts and their proximity to each other. Parts less than 60” apart have the potential to cause an electrocution for a large raptor such as a bald eagle. The greater the number of parts in a confined space the greater the risk of a bird touching or spanning any two. So pole risk is a function of the number of energized parts. Potential energized parts are the phases and the equipment. Phases (e.g. lines) range from 1 to 3 per pole. Equipment is items such as transformers, capacitor banks, and jumper wires that are added to the pole for power management purposes. Equipment load values range from 1 to 4.
B.2. Structural Density Although individual poles cause fatalities a density of high risk poles in an area can make an entire region of poles higher risk. Accordingly a pole risk density surface was created to express this relationship. The values ranged from 1 to 10.
125 Avian Protection Plan 2007
B.3. Structural Model Output The output is a GIS surface that expresses the relative cumulative risk for the structures within any 10m square cell throughout the FPL service area. There are two structural risk outputs, one for the individual poles which is expressed as discrete cell (10m squares) and another for the regional density of poles which is expressed as a continuous surface.
C. Cumulative Electrocution Model The biological risk model output raster and the two versions structure risk output raster were added together using the raster calculator to create two versions of the cumulative risk surface layer.
The cumulative layer shows the relationship between these two independently derived data sets for the biology and the structures.
IV. RESULTS
A. Model Output The biological risk model is a single surface layer that expresses the cumulative risk values for any location in the FPL service area based upon habitat type, level of habitat use and type of bird usage/behavior within that habitat. It is derived from a combination of the primary nesting, secondary nesting, primary foraging, and secondary foraging modeled layers.
The single pole version of the structure risk model presents each individual pole as a cell with a relative risk value based on the number of phases and equipment load.
The regional density version of the structure risk model presents the regionalized risk of the poles as a continuous surface.
The cumulative electrocution risk model is expressed two ways to reflect the two versions of the structural model. In both instances the output is a surface layer that is an expression of biological risk model and the electrocution risk model. This culmination is completed via the raster calculator such that the biological and structural risk values are summed to create a final electrocution risk output.
B. Model Interpretation The modeled layers are normalized and weighted. The darkest color in each color ramp (Figures 3 t0 13) indicates the highest relative risk for the factor that is mapped (e.g. nesting habitat or foraging habitat).
With over 1.4225 million distribution structures and a very low recent annual bald eagle mortality rate of 2 per year, high risk areas should not be interpreted as an area of certain future mortality but rather as an area that may have a higher likelihood.
126 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 2. Bald Eagle Nest Locations as of 2003.
127 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.3. Primary Foraging Habitat Relative Risk
128 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 4. Secondary Foraging Habitat Relative Risk
129 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 5. Summed Foraging Habitat Relative Risk
130 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 6. Primary Nesting Habitat Relative Risk
131 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 7. Secondary Nesting Habitat Relative Risk
132 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 8. Summed Nesting Habitat Relative Risk
133 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 9. Summed Biological Relative Risk
134 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 10. Structural Risk for individual distribution structures.
135 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 11. Structural Risk for regions of distribution structures.
136 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 12. Cumulative Electrocution Risk version with individual structures
137 Avian Protection Plan 2007
Figure 13. Cumulative Electrocution Risk version with regions of structures
138 Avian Protection Plan 2007
V. SUMMARY
The bald eagle risk analysis and model and it supporting sub-models are utilized by FPL as part of their overall approach to reduce avian mortality associated with utility structures. Specifically, FPL has used this model to identify high and medium risk areas. Based on this information, FPL has been able to determine the highest priority areas to retrofit existing equipment.
In addition, this model has been integrated into the FPL GIS data sets to be used as a proactive assessment tool during the siting process. These higher risk areas can then be avoided through the siting process, or avian friendly standards can be used when constructing these new structures in high risk areas. The combination of these measures is anticipated to reduce avian mortality and improve service reliability.
139 Avian Protection Plan 2007
VI. LITERATURE CITED
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee.1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power line: the state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC. 78 pp
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee.1996. Suggested practices for raptor protection on powerlines: the state of the art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation, Washington, DC. 125 pp
Avian Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines. 2005. The Edison Electric Institute’s Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Bevanger, K. 1994. Bird Interactions with utility structures: collision and electrocution, causes and mitigation measures. IBIS 136:412-425.
DeLong, J.P. 2000. HawkWatch International Raptor Conservation Program: Issues and priorities. HawkWatch International, Inc. Utah.
Friend, M. and J.C. Franson (eds.). 1999. Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases: General Procedures and Diseases of Birds. USGS, Biological Resource Division: Information and Technology Report 1999-001. p.357-359. Available at : http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/field_manual/index.jsp.
Hoctor, T. Bald Eagle Model for SWFWMD. Personal communications with Crissy Sutter at Pandion Systems, Inc.
Hunting, K. 2002. A roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Power Line Electrocutions in California. California Energy Commission, Commission Staff Report P500-02- 072F.
Janss, G.F.E and M. Ferrer. 2000. Common crane and great bustard collision with power lines: collision rate and risk exposure. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(3):675-680.
Lehman, R.N. 2001. Raptor electrocution on power lines: current issues and outlook. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(3):804-813.
Pacific Corp. 2002. Raptor Electrocution Reduction Program 2001: Pilot Study. Pacific Corp and Hawk Watch International.
140 Avian Protection Plan 2007
VII. APPENDIX A. FILE LIST OF THE BASE GIS LAYERS USED FOR THE RISK MODEL.
Layer Name Layer Description Source Currency Layer Modeled Data Problems of Layer Date of accuracy/ layers it was Layer resolution used for County County boundaries Reference layer State State boundary Reference layer Pole.shp point feature layer FPL Provided Not provided structure containing Distribution by FPL in poles for the entire FL November service area. There are 2005 1,422,500 records, each with a unique pole ID. Oh_primary.shp line feature layer FPL Provided Not provided Structure Not spatially accurate containing Distribution by FPL in and thus not associated lines for the entire FPL November with the poles that service area. There are 2005 they connect to. Many 699,059 records, each with the number of phases. lines are missing Pole_equip.dbf equipment database table FPL Provided Not provided structure contains the equipment by FPL in type that is on each November distribution pole and a 2005 unique pole ID. There are 1660271 records.
141 BBaa ll dd
Avian Protection Plan 2007
Layer Name Layer Description Source Currency Layer Modeled Data Problems of Layer Date of accuracy/ layers it was Layer resolution used for Eagle2003_pub The bald eagle nest Florida All eagle Not provided Biology _alb locations is a point layer Fish and nests with associated data. It Wildlife known was provided by the Conserva from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission tion early Commiss 1970s ion through the 2003 breeding season fl_veg03 Digital vegetation and land Florida 2003 3 meter cell Biology cover data set for Florida Fish and size derived from 2003 Landsat Wildlife Enhanced Thematic Mapper Conserva satellite imagery. tion Commiss ion
142