Biological Assessment

National Marine Fisheries Service

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Combined License Application Docket Nos. 052-041 and 052-042

Miami-Dade County, Florida

February 2015

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland

Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... F3.1-1 2.0 Proposed Action ...... F3.2-1 3.0 Turkey Point Site Description ...... F3.3-1 3.1 Proposed Facilities ...... F3.3-1 3.1.1 Structures with a Major Environmental Interface ...... F3.3-1 3.1.2 Other Structures ...... F3.3-7 3.2 General Aquatic Ecological Resources ...... F3.3-7 3.2.1 Turkey Point Site ...... F3.3-7 3.2.2 Nearshore Areas of Biscayne Bay and Card Sound ...... F3.3-8 3.3 General Aquatic Ecological Resources Along Transmission-Line Corridors ..... F3.3-10 4.0 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action ...... F3.4-1 4.1 Impacts of Construction ...... F3.4-1 4.1.1 Turkey Point Site ...... F3.4-1 4.1.2 Nearshore Locations in Biscayne Bay and Card Sound ...... F3.4-3 4.1.3 Transmission-Line Corridors ...... F3.4-5 4.2 Impacts of Operation ...... F3.4-5 4.2.1 Use of Reclaimed Water from the MDSWD ...... F3.4-5 4.2.2 Operation of the Radial Collector Well System ...... F3.4-7 4.2.3 Cooling-Tower Blowdown ...... F3.4-9 4.2.4 Noise and Light Emissions ...... F3.4-10 5.0 Baseline Conditions for Aquatic Species ...... F3.5-1 5.1 Whales ...... F3.5-1 5.2 Sea Turtles ...... F3.5-1 5.2.1 Green Sea Turtle ...... F3.5-5 5.2.2 Loggerhead Sea Turtle ...... F3.5-7 5.2.3 Hawksbill Sea Turtle ...... F3.5-10 5.2.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle ...... F3.5-12 5.2.5 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle ...... F3.5-13 5.3 Smalltooth Sawfish ...... F3.5-15 5.3.1 Life History ...... F3.5-15 5.3.2 Habitat Requirements ...... F3.5-15 5.3.3 Status and Distribution ...... F3.5-18 5.3.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline ...... F3.5-18 5.3.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area ...... F3.5-18

iii Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

5.4 Nassau Grouper ...... F3.5-19 5.4.1 Life History ...... F3.5-20 5.4.2 Habitat Requirements ...... F3.5-20 5.4.3 Status and Distribution ...... F3.5-20 5.4.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline ...... F3.5-20 5.4.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area ...... F3.5-21 5.5 Shortnose Sturgeon ...... F3.5-21 5.6 Johnson’s Seagrass ...... F3.5-21 5.7 Corals ...... F3.5-21 5.7.1 Listed Species ...... F3.5-21 6.0 Effects of the Proposed Action on Aquatic Species ...... F3.6-1 6.1 Sea Turtles ...... F3.6-1 6.1.1 Construction-Related Impacts ...... F3.6-1 6.1.2 Operational Impacts ...... F3.6-4 6.2 Smalltooth Sawfish ...... F3.6-6 6.2.1 Construction-Related Impacts ...... F3.6-6 6.2.2 Operational Impacts ...... F3.6-7 6.3 Nassau Grouper ...... F3.6-7 6.3.1 Construction-Related Impacts ...... F3.6-7 6.3.2 Operational Impacts ...... F3.6-7 7.0 Cumulative Effects ...... F3.7-1 7.1.1 Existing Turkey Point Units ...... F3.7-1 7.1.2 Cutler Units 5 and 6 ...... F3.7-1 7.1.3 Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition Restoration ...... F3.7-2 7.1.4 Biscayne National Park Fishery Management Plan ...... F3.7-2 7.1.5 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program ...... F3.7-3 7.1.6 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary ...... F3.7-4 7.1.7 Population Growth and Coastal Development ...... F3.7-5 7.1.8 Climate Change ...... F3.7-5 7.1.9 Cumulative Effects Summary ...... F3.7-6 8.0 Determination ...... F3.8-1 9.0 References ...... F3.9-1

iv Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

Figures

2-1 Turkey Point Site and 50-Mile Region ...... F3.2-2 3-1 Turkey Point Site Location with Respect to Biscayne Bay and Card Sound ...... F3.3-2 3-2 Location of Proposed Units 6 and 7 Plant Area Within the Turkey Point Site ...... F3.3-3 3-3 Site Layout for Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and Associated Facilities ...... F3.3-4 3-4 Plan and Cross-Sectional View of a Typical Radial Collector Well System ...... F3.3-6 5-1 Location of Sea Turtle Nests and Stranding Locations in South Florida, 1986−2007 ...... F3.5-3 5-2 Location of Sea Turtle Strandings by Species Near Turkey Point from 1986−2007 ...... F3.5-4 5-3 Loggerhead Sea Turtle Critical Habitat in Coastal Florida...... F3.5-9 5-4 Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat ...... F3.5-17 5-5 Sawfish Sighting Locations Near Turkey Point, 1890-2012 ...... F3.5-19

Tables

1-1 Federally Listed Aquatic Species Under the Jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries Service for the Florida-Atlantic Region(a) ...... F3.1-3 3-1 Fish Species Composing 90 Percent of the Total Catch in Card Sound During 2008−2009 Sampling Events ...... F3.3-10 3-2 Fish Species that Could Occur in Open-Water Habitats Associated with the Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors and Roadway Improvement Areas in Dade County, Florida ...... F3.3-11 4-1 Estimated Deposition Rates for TDS and Constituent Concentrations for Reclaimed Wastewater and Biscayne Bay Seawater on Aquatic Resources at or near the Turkey Point Site Resulting from Cooling-Tower Operation ...... F3.4-7 5-1 Summary of Green, Loggerhead, Hawksbill, Leatherback, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Stranding Data for Zone 25, 2007−2014 ...... F3.5-5 5-2 Green Sea Turtle Stranding Data for Zone 25, 2007 to 2014 ...... F3.5-7 5-3 Loggerhead Sea Turtle Stranding Data for Zone 25, 2007 to 2014 ...... F3.5-10 5-4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle Stranding Data for Zone 25, 2007 to 2014...... F3.5-12 5-5 Leatherback Sea Turtle Stranding Data for Zone 25, 2007 to 2014 ...... F3.5-13 5-6 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Strandings in Zone 25, 2007 to 2014 ...... F3.5-15 6-1 Comparison of Estimated Concentrations of Chemicals in the Cooling Canal System from Cooling-Tower Deposition During Reclaimed Water Use to Analytical Method Detection Limits and Toxicological Criteria or Benchmarks ...... F3.6-5 8-1 Expected Impacts on Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species from Construction and Operation of the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 ...... F3.8-2

v

Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

Abbreviations/Acronyms ac acre(s) AP1000 Advanced Passive 1000 (reactor) BA biological assessment CEC contaminants of emerging concern CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program CFR Code of Federal Regulations COL combined construction permits and operating licenses, or combined licenses cm centimeter(s) CPUE catch per unit effort CWS circulating-water system dB decibel(s) dBA decibel A-filter DPS Distinct Population Segment EAI Ecological Associates, Inc. EIS environmental impact statement ER Environmental Report ESA Endangered Species Act FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary FMP fishery management plan FPL Florida Power and Light Company fps feet per second ft foot(feet) ft2 square feet FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service g/m2 gram(s) per square meter gpm gallon(s) per minute in. inch(es) IWF industrial wastewater facility kg kilogram(s) kV kilovolt(s) L liter(s) MDWASD Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department Mgd million gallons per day mi mile(s) MW(e) megawatts electrical MW(t) megawatts thermal NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOEC no observed effect concentrations NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

vii Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

NPS National Park Service NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pa micropascal(s) psu practical salinity unit RCW radial collector well RMS root mean square RWTF reclaimed water-treatment facility SCA Site Certification Application SFWMD South Florida Water Management District STSSN Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network SWS service-water system T&E threatened and endangered TDS total dissolved solids USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USGS U.S. Geological Survey

F3.viii Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 1.0 Introduction

2 For the purpose of this review, the proposed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 3 Commission) Federal action under consideration is the issuance, under the provisions of Title 4 10 the Code of Federal Regulations Part 52 (10 CFR Part 52) (TN251), of two combined 5 construction permits and operating licenses (combined licenses, or COLs) authorizing the 6 construction and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 at Florida Power and Light Company’s 7 (FPL’s) Turkey Point site, located near Homestead, Florida, in Miami-Dade County. The 8 proposed USACE Federal action is the decision whether to issue, issue with modifications, or 9 deny a DA permit pursuant to the requirements in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 10 Section 1344) (TN427) and Sections 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 11 Sections 403 and 408) (TN660) to authorize certain activities potentially affecting WOTUS 12 based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed 13 activities on the public interest.. By a letter dated June 30, 2009 (FPL 2009-TN1229), as 14 supplemented by a letter dated August 7, 2009 (FPL 2009-TN1230), FPL applied to the NRC for 15 two COLs for the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. On June 30, 2009, the U.S. Army Corps 16 of Engineers (USACE or Corps) received a Department of the Army (DA) permit application 17 from FPL in connection with the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, and associated 18 structures, including a reclaimed water facility, access roads, radial collector wells, pipelines, 19 transmission lines, and other related infrastructure. The proposed work would result in the 20 alteration of waters of the United States,1 including wetlands. The USACE permit decision will 21 be made in its Record of Decision (ROD).

22 The USACE is participating as a cooperating agency with the NRC in preparing this 23 environmental impact statement (EIS). The USACE expects to publish a public notice of FPL’s 24 DA permit application within 30 days of the publication of this EIS. In addition to the 25 applications received by NRC and USACE, FPL submitted a Site Certification Application (SCA) 26 to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This application was 27 submitted on June 30, 2009 (FPL 2010-TN1231. The SCA process provides a certification that 28 encompasses all licenses needed for affected Florida State, regional, and local agencies. It 29 also includes any regulatory activity that would be applicable under these agencies’ regulations 30 for the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 (FDEP 2013-TN2629). A final Conditions of 31 Certification, dated May 19, 2014, was issued to FPL authorizing construction, operation, and 32 maintenance of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and associated facilities subject to the requirements 33 listed (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). Relevant information related to the SCA process was 34 also evaluated during the development of this biological assessment (BA).

35 To facilitate the review of the proposed action, the USACE is participating as a cooperating 36 agency with the NRC in preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed 37 units. The National Park Service (NPS) is also participating as a cooperating agency in the

1 “Waters of the United States” is used to include both “waters of the United States” as defined by 33 C.F.R. Part 328 defining the extent of USACE geographic jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and “navigable waters of the United States” as defined by 33 C.F.R. Part 329 defining the extent of USACE geographic jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

1-1 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 review by providing special expertise in the areas of hydrology and aquatic ecology. The NPS 2 does not have any specific regulatory actions pending before it in regard to the proposed Units 6 3 and 7 at this time. However as a cooperating agency, the NPS did provide input into the impact 4 analysis based on the special expertise previously described. Due to this unique set of 5 circumstances, impact determinations made should not be attributed to the NPS, but only to the 6 NRC and USACE, also referred to as the review team. The NRC, and USACE, have prepared 7 this BA to support their joint consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 8 accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) (TN1010), as 9 amended (ESA).

10 The 9,640 ac Turkey Point site currently contains five power-generating stations. Units 1 and 2 11 are 400 MW(e) natural-gas/oil steam electrical generating units. Unit 1 has been in service 12 since 1967; FPL plans to convert it to operate as a synchronous condenser in 2016. The 13 synchronous condenser mode provides voltage stability for the regional transmission system, 14 but it does not provide electrical generation capacity nor significant quantities of waste heat. 15 Unit 2 has been in service since 1968; it has already been converted to operate in synchronous 16 condenser mode (FPL 2013-TN2630). Two pressurized water reactors and their associated 17 facilities (Units 3 and 4) are located on the site. Unit 3 has been in service since 1972 and Unit 18 4 has been in service since 1973. The NRC approved power uprates for Units 3 and 4 that 19 were completed by FPL in 2013 (NRC 2012-TN1438; FPL 2014-TN3360). The net power 20 output of Units 3 and 4 together increased from a nominal 1,400 MW(e) to 1,632 MW(e) 21 (FPL 2000-TN3947; FPL 2014-TN3360). Unit 5 is a natural-gas combined-cycle unit rated to 22 produce 1,150 MW(e); it began operating in 2007. These existing units occupy approximately 23 195 ac. Units 1 through 4 on the Turkey Point site rely on a system of canals, which occupy 24 approximately 5,900 ac on the Turkey Point site, to provide cooling (Figure 3-1). The canals are 25 used as a closed-loop cooling system, and they are permitted as an industrial wastewater 26 facility (FPL 2014-TN4058). Mechanical draft cooling towers are used to dissipate heat from 27 Unit 5. Water from the Upper Floridan aquifer is withdrawn to provide makeup water to the Unit 28 5 cooling towers. Blowdown water from the cooling towers is sent to the cooling canals of the 29 industrial wastewater facility (FPL 2014-TN4058). The proposed plant area is south of Turkey 30 Point Units 3 and 4, on approximately 218 ac of the Turkey Point property (FPL 2014-TN4058). 31 The proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be owned by FPL (FPL 2014-TN4058).

32 As noted above, pursuant to ESA Section 7(c), the review team composed of NRC and USACE 33 staff jointly prepared this BA with assistance from the NPS. It examines the potential impacts of 34 preconstruction, construction, and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 at the Turkey Point site 35 on Federally listed species under the jurisdiction of NMFS that potentially occur at the Turkey 36 Point site and in nearby areas. The assessment includes habitats that would be crossed by 37 proposed new transmission-line and pipeline corridors needed to serve the proposed new units 38 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) (TN1010). The list of species considered in this BA is contained in 39 Table 1-1.

40 In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416) (TN260), the Commission limited the 41 definition of “construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority (10 CFR 51.4) 42 (TN250). Many of the activities undertaken to build a nuclear power plant are common to all 43 major industrial construction projects (e.g., clearing and grading, excavation, and erection of 44 support buildings), but do not involve radiological health and safety or the common defense and

1-2 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 security, and, therefore, are not defined as construction by the NRC. These matters are not 2 within the NRC’s licensing authority over nuclear power reactors, and are not part of the NRC 3 action to license Turkey Point Units 6 & 7. The activities associated with building the plant that 4 are not within the purview of the NRC are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” 5 Preconstruction activities include clearing and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings 6 and transmission lines, and other associated activities. To at least some extent, these activities 7 would be necessary to build any thermal power plant. Because preconstruction activities are 8 not part of the NRC action, their impacts are not reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. 9 Rather, the impacts of the preconstruction activities are considered in the context of cumulative 10 impacts. Although the preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, certain 11 preconstruction activities require permits from the USACE, as well as other Federal, State, and 12 local agencies. Because the USACE permits would authorize the activities denoted as 13 “preconstruction” under NRC regulations, and this is a joint BA for both the NRC and USACE, 14 the distinction between construction and preconstruction activities is not carried forward in this 15 BA. Since NRC-defined preconstruction activities are construction under the USACE regulatory 16 framework, both are discussed jointly and are referred to as “construction” in this BA.

17 Table 1-1. Federally Listed Aquatic Species Under the Jurisdiction of National Oceanic 18 and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service for the Florida-Atlantic 19 Region(a)

Listed Species Scientific Name Status Date Listed Mammals Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered 12/02/70 Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered 12/02/70 Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered 12/02/70 North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered 12/02/70 Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered 12/02/70 Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered 12/02/70 Reptiles Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered 07/28/78 Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered 06/02/70 Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered 12/02/70 Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered 06/02/70 Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened 07/28/78 Fish Smalltooth Sawfish Pristis pectinata Endangered 04/01/03 Nassau Grouper Epinephelus striatus Proposed 10/10/12 Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered 03/11/67 Invertebrates Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata Threatened 08/27/14(b) Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis Threatened 08/27/14(b) Cactus coral Mycetophyllia ferox Threatened 08/27/14(b) Pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus Threatened 08/27/14(b) Boulder star coral Montastraea (Orbicella) annularis Threatened 08/27/14(b) Mountainous star coral Montastraea (Orbicella) faveolata Threatened 08/27/14(b)

1-3 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

Listed Species Scientific Name Status Date Listed Star coral Montastraea (Orbicella) franksi Threatened 08/27/14(b) Seagrasses Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii Threatened 09/14/98 (a) Source: January 9, 2009 letter from Teletha Mincey, NMFS, to FPL (SCA Appendix 10.7.1.3) (FPL 2008- TN1897). (b) Sources: NOAA Fisheries 2014-TN4022; 79 FR 53851 (TN4097) NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1-4 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2.0 Proposed Action

2 The Turkey Point site is on the southeastern coast of Florida in unincorporated southeast 3 Miami-Dade County. The site borders Biscayne Bay and Card Sound and is approximately 4 25 mi south of Miami (Figure 2-1).

5 Two Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized 6 water reactors with an electrical output of approximately 1,092 megawatts electrical [MW(e)] 7 and 3,415 megawatts thermal [MW(t)] each are proposed. These units would use closed-cycle, 8 wet-cooling towers to dissipate waste heat from the circulating water system (CWS). The 9 primary cooling water source for Units 6 and 7 would be reclaimed water obtained from the 10 Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD). Radial collector wells (RCWs) installed 11 under Biscayne Bay would provide a backup source of cooling water when the quantity and/or 12 quality of reclaimed water needed for the CWS is not available. Each unit would have a 13 mechanical draft cooling tower for the CWS and an additional smaller mechanical draft cooling 14 tower for the service water system (SWS). Blowdown water would be discharged through deep 15 injection wells into the Boulder Zone (a zone of cavernous, high-permeability geologic horizon 16 within the Lower Floridan aquifer) located 2,800 to 3,500 ft underground.

17 Most of the proposed Units 6 & 7 structures would be confined to the Turkey Point site and have 18 a limited connection with Biscayne Bay or Card Sound. The new reactor units, including cooling 19 towers, a makeup-water reservoir, a new substation, and associated facilities, would be built on 20 a filled “island” (or plant area) enclosed by a stabilized earth perimeter wall on the north, east, 21 and west sides, and a reinforced concrete wall on the south side of the property. Areas 22 immediately surrounding the plant area “island” would be contoured to direct stormwater away 23 from the buildings and into catch basins, storm drains, and swales. Stormwater would then be 24 collected and discharged into nearby cooling canals of the existing industrial wastewater facility 25 (IWF). The reclaimed water-treatment facility (RWTF) would have stormwater retention ponds 26 designed to capture and retain the first inch of precipitation and associated sediment before 27 discharging water over riprap aprons into the surrounding wetlands. Additional supporting 28 structures would include transportation facilities, buildings, parking lots, fill-source areas, and 29 spoils-disposal areas.

30 Actions with a nexus to Biscayne Bay and Card Sound include the construction of the RCW 31 system on the Turkey Point peninsula, modifications to the equipment barge unloading area at 32 the northern end of the property, and the general operation of Units 6 and 7 if approval is 33 granted by Federal and State regulatory agencies. Because no threatened and endangered 34 (T&E) species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are known or expected to be present along 35 proposed transmission-line corridors, adverse effects from construction and operation of these 36 linear facilities are highly unlikely.

2-1 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

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

2-2 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 3.0 Turkey Point Site Description

2 This section describes the proposed facilities associated with this action, and provides a general 3 description of the aquatic resources onsite and in the vicinity of the Turkey Point site, including 4 proposed transmission-line corridors. As described above, the Turkey Point site is on the 5 southeastern coast of Florida in unincorporated southeast Miami-Dade County (Figure 3-1). 6 The site borders Biscayne Bay and Card Sound and is approximately 25 mi south of Miami. 7 Homestead and Florida City are the closest incorporated communities. Florida City is 8 mi west 8 of the site and the municipal limits of Homestead are 4.5 mi west of the site. The Turkey Point 9 site encompasses 9,400 ac of land, and the proposed plant area for Units 6 and 7 is a 218 ac 10 parcel surrounded by man-made cooling canals associated with the IWF (Figure 3-2).

11 3.1 Proposed Facilities

12 Figure 3-3 shows the location of proposed facilities on the Turkey Point site, including the 13 location of major buildings and infrastructure, heavy-haul roads, substations, pipelines, and 14 cooling towers. RCWs installed on the Turkey Point peninsula and extending under Biscayne 15 Bay would provide cooling water when the quantity and/or quality of reclaimed water needed for 16 the CWS is not available. FPL anticipates RCW laterals (e.g., horizontal pipelines) to be 17 situated 25 to 40 ft below the bottom of Biscayne Bay. Each unit would have a mechanical draft 18 cooling tower for the CWS and an additional smaller mechanical draft cooling tower for the 19 SWS. These systems are located at the southern end of the site. Blowdown water would be 20 discharged through onsite deep injection wells into the Boulder Zone located 2,800 to 3,500 ft 21 underground. The existing equipment barge unloading area would be used to support 22 construction and future operation, but would require modifications, as described below.

23 3.1.1 Structures with a Major Environmental Interface

24 For the purpose of this review, plant structures of interest are those that have a direct or indirect 25 interface with the environment. Examples of relevant environmental interfaces include the 26 construction and operation of the proposed closed-cycle cooling system, construction and 27 operation of the RCW system, modification and use of the existing equipment barge-loading 28 area at the northeast portion of the Turkey Point property adjacent to Biscayne Bay, and 29 construction and operation of the proposed transmission line system to support the proposed 30 units.

3-1 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2 Figure 3-1. Turkey Point Site Location with Respect to Biscayne Bay and Card Sound 3 (from Wang et al. 2003-TN105)

3-2 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2 Figure 3-2. Location of Proposed Units 6 and 7 Plant Area Within the Turkey Point Site

3-3 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2 Figure 3-3. Site Layout for Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and Associated 3 Facilities

4 Although the proposed cooling system would not use a conventional surface-water intake or 5 discharge, cooling tower deposition containing chemicals in the reclaimed wastewater provided 6 by MDWASD or salt from Biscayne Bay during RCW operation may affect aquatic 7 environments. A brief summary of these structures and how they might interact with nearshore 8 aquatic environments is provided below.

3-4 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 3.1.1.1 Cooling System, Deep-Injection Wells, and Cooling Towers

2 In general, the cooling water system of a nuclear reactor represents one of the most important 3 interactions with the environment because it has the potential to affect aquatic organisms in 4 many ways. Cooling water is typically obtained from a nearby waterbody using a conventional 5 surface-water intake, heat is typically rejected to the atmosphere, and liquid effluents are 6 typically discharged to the environment through a surface or subsurface outfall. The proposed 7 configuration and operation of the cooling system for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would eliminate 8 the need for a conventional water intake because, under normal operation, FPL’s primary 9 source of cooling water would be reclaimed water from the MDWASD. Because reclaimed 10 water supply can vary in quantity and quality, FPL has proposed a secondary (backup) source 11 of cooling water − saltwater extracted from Biscayne Bay subsurface sediment through RCWs 12 constructed on the Turkey Point peninsula, east of the existing units (Figure 3-3). This 13 approach also eliminates the need for a conventional water intake. With regard to water use, 14 FPL describes its approach to managing cooling water supplies in the following way:

15 Reclaimed water from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department 16 (MDWASD) would supply makeup water for the circulating-water system of 17 Units 6 & 7. When reclaimed water cannot supply the quantity and/or quality of 18 water needed for the circulating-water system, additional makeup water would be 19 saltwater supplied from radial collector wells. The circulating-water system would 20 be designed to accommodate 100 percent supply from reclaimed water, 21 saltwater, or a combination of the two sources. The ratio of water supplied by the 22 two makeup water sources would vary based on the availability of reclaimed 23 water from the MDWASD (FPL 2014-TN4058).

24 FPL has proposed that RCW use would be limited to 60 days per year (FPL 2012-TN2688). For 25 both water sources, a portion of the cooling-tower makeup water would be returned to the 26 environment via deep injection wells into the Boulder Zone (FPL 2014-TN4058), thereby 27 eliminating the need for a conventional surface-water outfall. FPL indicates that “effluents would 28 be discharged to the Boulder Zone via deep-injection wells permitted by the FDEP underground 29 injection control program” (FPL 2014-TN4058). A total of 12 deep-injection wells and 6 dual- 30 zone monitoring wells are proposed. Six injection wells and three monitoring wells would be 31 located along the east perimeter wall; the other six injection wells and three monitoring wells 32 would be located along the south wall dividing the filled area from the makeup-water reservoir 33 (Figure 3-3). Each injection well would be a 24 in. diameter steel well casing extending up to 34 3,500 ft below grade. A typical injection well steel casing would be lined with 18 in. diameter 35 glass-fiber-reinforced plastic with grout in the annulus between the two. Its upper section would 36 be reinforced with additional steel casings of increasing diameter.

37 Regardless of the water source, operation of the CWS for Units 6 and 7 would result in the 38 release of water vapor to the atmosphere via evaporative cooling in the mechanical draft cooling 39 towers. Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would use closed-cycle wet-cooling towers to 40 dissipate heat. As described in Section 3.1 of the NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 each unit uses three 41 cooling towers. The CWS cooling towers would be mechanical draft towers, octagonal in 42 shape, approximately 67 ft high and 246 ft in diameter, with fiberglass-reinforced plastic 43 structural members and casings (FPL 2014-TN4058). In each tower, fans would blow air across

3-5 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 water sprayed through fine nozzles, removing heat from the water and rejecting that heat to the 2 atmosphere. The six towers would be located south of the reactor units within the perimeter 3 wall of the makeup-water reservoir (Figure 3-3). Each new unit would also have one cooling 4 tower for the SWS located adjacent to the AP1000 turbine building. These would also be 5 mechanical draft cooling towers, each divided into two cells.

6 3.1.1.2 Radial Collector Well System and Saltwater Pipeline Structures

7 As described above, a secondary source of cooling water would be provided from four radial 8 collector wells located on the Turkey Point peninsula (Figure 3-3). Each RCW would consist of 9 a central reinforced concrete caisson with several laterals (horizontal collector lines) extending 10 out from the caisson. The laterals (horizontal pipes) would extend horizontally up to 900 ft 11 beneath Biscayne Bay. They would be installed sequentially approximately 25 to 40 ft below 12 the sediment surface using microtunneling technology (FPL 2014-TN4058). Plan and cross- 13 sectional views of a typical RCW are shown in Figure 3-4. Saltwater from the radial wells would 14 be pumped directly to the cooling-tower basins as needed to provide makeup water. These 15 pipelines would be routed from the Turkey Point peninsula along the existing berm east of the 16 plant area, and be situated above ground (Figure 3-3).

17 18 Figure 3-4. Plan and Cross-Sectional View of a Typical Radial Collector Well System 19 (FPL 2014-TN4058)

20 3.1.1.3 Equipment Barge-Unloading Facility

21 An existing navigational channel connects the Turkey Point site with the Florida Intracoastal 22 Waterway. The existing Turkey Point equipment barge-unloading facility currently used for

3-6 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 unloading equipment and providing fuel oil to the existing units would be enlarged to 2 accommodate the larger barges used to deliver components for the proposed units (Figure 3-3). 3 An area approximately 90 ft by 150 ft would be excavated on the northwest edge of the existing 4 barge-turning basin, resulting in a total disturbed area of 130 ft by 250 ft (FPL 2014-TN4058). 5 This area includes a concrete apron for unloading equipment and components for the proposed 6 units. The expansion of the barge-unloading facility would involve temporary installation of 7 sheet-piles and dredging of a 4,356 ft2 (0.1 ac) area in the turning (FPL 2014-TN4058). FPL did 8 not indicate in ER Revision 6 that dredging of the entrance channel or intercoastal waterway 9 would be needed to support construction activities. If dredging in these areas is necessary, a 10 dredging permit would be required by the USACE.

11 3.1.1.4 Power Transmission System

12 In Section 3.7 of its Environmental Report (ER) (FPL 2014-TN4058), FPL described the power 13 transmission system that would connect proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 to the grid that 14 distributes power to the FPL service territory. Existing transmission system voltages range from 15 69 kV to 500 kV; existing transmission lines serving the area of the proposed Units 6 and 7 are 16 230 kV. The proposed Clear Sky substation, a new 230 kV/500 kV switchyard/substation, 17 would be constructed within the perimeter wall for Units 6 and 7, just northwest of the new units 18 (Figure 3-3). Two new 500 kV lines and three new 230 kV lines would connect the proposed 19 Clear Sky substation to the existing FPL transmission system. The two new 500 kV lines would 20 terminate at the Levee substation. One of the new 230 kV lines would share a corridor with the 21 500 kV lines as far as Levee, but it would bypass the Levee substation and continue on another 22 9 mi to terminate at the Pennsuco substation. Another new 230 kV line would connect the Clear 23 Sky substation to the Davis substation, and would continue north to the Miami substation. The 24 third new 230 kV line would supply an alternate feed of offsite power to the existing Turkey Point 25 substation serving existing Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, providing a path for offsite power between the 26 substations in the event of loss of transmission at either substation.

27 3.1.2 Other Structures

28 As described in Chapter 3 of the EIS, NUREG-2176 most of the remaining structures proposed 29 under this action would be confined to terrestrial locations within or adjacent to the Turkey Point 30 site. These include local transportation facilities, including heavy-haul roads, water-treatment 31 facilities, administrative buildings, parking lots, construction laydown areas, fill-source areas, 32 and designated locations for excavated material or spoils disposal.

33 3.2 General Aquatic Ecological Resources

34 3.2.1 Turkey Point Site

35 As described in FPL’s ER (FPL 2014-TN4058), onsite surface-water habitats associated with 36 Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 include hypersaline mudflats, remnant and active canals and 37 channels, dwarf mangrove wetlands, and open-water areas. As part of the pre-application 38 monitoring activities, FPL surveyed fish species in June 2009 in the plant area that would be 39 affected by construction of the proposed units. FPL used a variety of sampling gear, including 40 minnow seines, cast nets, and minnow traps; FPL avoided entangling gear such as gill and

3-7 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 trammel nets to protect resident crocodile populations. Fish collection results showed the 2 Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)—the dominant species that occurred in seven of 3 the eight sampling stations—represented 63 percent of the species composition. Sailfin Molly 4 (Poecilia latipinna) and Goldspotted Killifish (Floridichthys carpio) were present at the majority of 5 the sampling stations, and represented 20.8 percent and 9.9 percent of the species 6 composition, respectively. The remaining species that occurred were less common, and 7 collectively represented about 6 percent of the species composition. All fish collected 8 represented hardy species common to South Florida; no rare, unusual, sensitive, or protected 9 species were collected (FPL 2009-TN201).

10 The largest surface-water feature within the Turkey Point site is the IWF (Figure 3-2). It 11 occupies approximately 5,900 ac on the Turkey Point site and is used to provide cooling water 12 for Turkey Point Units 1−4. The IWF also receives blowdown water from Unit 5. The IWF 13 contains an extensive system of canals and berms, and it supports a variety of aquatic species 14 that are tolerant of subtropical, hypersaline environments, including Sheepshead Minnow, 15 Killifish (Fundulus sp.), Mosquitofish (Gambusia sp.), Mullet (Mugil sp.), Sailfin Molly, and 16 Needlefish (Strongylura sp.) (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Table 2-21). FPL employees have also 17 reported observing large game species such as Common Snook (Centropomus undecimalis) 18 and Tarpon (Megalops atlanticus)—most likely older individuals that have persisted in the 19 system since it was isolated from Biscayne Bay in 1973 (FPL 2014-TN4058). Invertebrates 20 common to the IWF include a variety of mollusks, including lightning whelks (Busycon 21 contrarium), ivory cerith (Cerithium eburneum), and Florida crown conch (Melongena corona). 22 Submerged aquatic vegetation includes mermaid’s wineglass (Acetabularia sp.), green algae of 23 the genus Batophora and Caulerpa, and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime) (NRC EIS, NUREG- 24 2176 Table 2-21). Recruitment of fish and invertebrates may also occur as a result of hurricane 25 storm surge overtopping IWF canal berms. No rare, unusual, sensitive, or protected aquatic 26 species under the jurisdiction of NMFS have been observed in the IWF or within Turkey Point 27 site boundaries.

28 3.2.2 Nearshore Areas of Biscayne Bay and Card Sound

29 Biscayne Bay in its present form supports a dynamic assemblage of fish, invertebrates, marine 30 mammals, and extensive seagrass beds. Johnson’s seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) is known to 31 be present in the bay and all five threatened or endangered sea turtles have been observed 32 (FFWCC 2011-TN158). As described by Browder et al. (2005-TN151), at least seven species of 33 seagrass occur in Biscayne Bay, and seagrass has been documented to cover up to 64 percent 34 of the bay bottom. Common seagrass species include turtle grass, shoal grass, manatee grass 35 (Syringodium filiforme), and three species of Halophila sp., including H. johnsonii, which is a 36 protected species, and Ruppia maritima (Browder et al. 2005-TN151). Coastal mangrove 37 communities are also present, and provide important habitat for many estuarine fish and 38 invertebrate species. In a study from 1998 to 2005, Serafy et al. (2007-TN215) found that the 39 mangrove-lined shorelines of Biscayne Bay were used by subadult and adult Gray Snapper 40 (Lutjanus griseus), juvenile Great Barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), and adult Goldspotted 41 Killifish. Nelson et al. (1991-TN174) and FPL (FPL 2014-TN4058) identified more than a dozen 42 fish and invertebrate species that were common to highly abundant during adult, spawning 43 adult, juvenile, larval, or egg life stages. Species identified by Browder et al. (2005-TN151) of 44 special relevance and utility for monitoring and assessment of Biscayne Bay included pink

3-8 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 shrimp (Farfantenaeus duorarum), blue and stone crab (Callinectes sapidus and Menippe 2 mercenaria), oysters (Crassostrea spp.), estuarine fish communities, bottlenose dolphin 3 (Tursiops truncatus), American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), Florida manatee (Trichechus 4 latirostris), and various wading birds. Representative marine species identified by Robles et al. 5 (2005-TN198) to assess the condition of marine resources in Biscayne National Park included 6 spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), Red Grouper (Epinephelus morio), Red Drum (Sciaenops 7 ocellatus), and Gray Snapper.

8 Card Sound is a shallow bay south of the Turkey Point site (Figure 3-1) with limited connection 9 to the Atlantic Ocean. The mangrove forests surrounding Card Sound are part of the longest 10 continuous stretch of mangroves remaining on the east coast of Florida, and they serve as food 11 and refuge for approximately 70 percent of the area’s commercially and recreationally important 12 marine species (FPL 2014-TN4058). Both Biscayne Bay and Card Sound are nursery areas for 13 the spiny lobster, and the area from Cape Florida through Card Sound is designated as a 14 lobster sanctuary by the State of Florida (FPL 2014-TN4058).

15 In 2008 and 2009, Ecological Associates, Inc. (EAI) conducted a study in Card Sound near the 16 Turkey Point site to characterize fish and shellfish resources. Sampling was conducted every 17 other week from March 4, 2008 to February 17, 2009, for a total of 26 sampling events at three 18 locations along the western shore of Card Sound near the southern boundary of Biscayne Bay. 19 Trawl samples were used to collect juvenile and adult fish and shellfish; towed nets were used 20 to collect icthyoplankton and shellfish larvae (EAI 2009-TN154). Table 3-1 provides a summary 21 of the baseline aquatic resource sampling results for fish in Card Sound and Card Sound Canal 22 in 2008−2009. During the fish survey, a total of 4,679 individual fish were captured; the overall 23 catch per unit effort (CPUE) was 7.5 specimens captured per 100 mi trawled. Seven species 24 accounted for 90 percent of the total captured; pinfish were the most numerous. No Federal or 25 State-listed species were observed during this study, but FPL has indicated the Smalltooth 26 Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) has been observed in Biscayne Bay and Card Sound (FPL 2014- 27 TN4058). 28

3-9 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Table 3-1. Fish Species Composing 90 Percent of the Total Catch in Card Sound During 2 2008−2009 Sampling Events

Total Number Percentage Catch per Common Name Scientific Name Collected of Total Unit Effort Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 919 19.64 1.47 Bluestriped Grunt Haemulon sciurus 591 12.63 0.94 Silver Jenny Eucinostomus gula 577 12.33 0.92 White Grunt Haemulon plumierii 544 11.63 0.87 Fringed Pipefish Anarchopterus criniger 324 6.92 0.52 Scrawled Cowfish Acanthostracion quadricornis 192 4.10 0.31 Gulf Toadfish Opsanus beta 172 3.68 0.27 Gray Snapper Lutjanus griseus 156 3.33 0.25 Planehead Filefish Stephanolepis hispida 152 3.25 0.24 Mojarra Eucinostomus spp. 130 2.78 0.21 Sea Bream Archosargus rhomboidalis 104 2.22 0.17 Striped Burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfii 82 1.75 0.13 Bandtail Puffer Sphoeroides spengleri 81 1.73 0.13 Fringed Filefish Monocanthus ciliates 72 1.54 0.11 Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus 57 1.22 0.09 Trunkfish Lactophrys trigonus 40 0.85 0.06 Grass Porgy Calamus arctifrons 39 0.83 0.06 Source: Adapted from EAI 2009-TN154.

3 3.3 General Aquatic Ecological Resources Along Transmission-Line Corridors

4 As described previously, FPL is proposing to install new 500 kV and 230 kV transmission lines 5 to connect the Clear Sky substation on Turkey Point site with other existing FPL substations in 6 Miami-Dade County. Approximately 90 mi of corridors would be constructed, including 7 approximately 52 mi of corridors for either of the two West corridor options, and approximately 8 38 mi associated with the East corridor (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Figure 2-8; also see SCA 9 Figure 9.0.0-1 (FPL 2010-TN272). Fish species likely to be present in open-water habitats 10 along the proposed transmission-line corridors and roadway improvement areas include a 11 combination of native and non-indigenous species (Table 3-2). Based on Florida Natural Areas 12 Inventory (FNAI) findings, FPL believes the only special-status fish species in Miami-Dade 13 County that could potentially occur along the proposed transmission-line corridors is the 14 Mangrove Rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus), although the corridors would not include ideal habitat 15 (mangrove) for the fish (FPL 2014-TN4058). Thus, listed species under the jurisdiction of 16 NMFS are not likely to occur within proposed transmission-line corridors.

3-10 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Table 3-2. Fish Species that Could Occur in Open-Water Habitats Associated with the 2 Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors and Roadway Improvement Areas in 3 Dade County, Florida

Common Name Scientific Name Florida Species of Concern Mangrove Rivulus Rivulus marmoratus Common Native Freshwater Forage Fish Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki Sailfin Molly Poecilia latipinna Least Killifish Heterandria formosa Sunfish Lepomis spp. Gar Lepisosteus spp. Common Non-Indigenous Fish Peacock Bass Cichla ocellaris Spotted Tilapia Tilapia mariae Blue Tilapia Oreochromis aureus Mayan Cichlid Cichlasoma urophthalmus Jaguar Guapote Cichlasoma managuense Oscar Astronotus ocellatus Source: FPL 2014-TN4058

3-11

Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 4.0 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

2 Sections 4.1 and 4.2 provide descriptions of the construction and operation impacts listed in 3 Section 2.0 that have the potential to affect threatened or endangered aquatic species under the 4 jurisdiction of NMFS. This assessment is based on the species habitat affinities, life history 5 considerations, and presence at or near the site during construction and operation of the 6 proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7.

7 4.1 Impacts of Construction

8 In Section 4.3.2 of the NRC EIS, NUREG-2176, there is a complete description of likely 9 environmental impacts associated with the construction of proposed Units 6 and 7. These 10 impacts include temporary or permanent loss of surface-water habitats resulting from 11 construction activities, disturbance of aquatic biota within the IWF during the excavation and 12 construction of the Turkey Point plant area as well as resulting material disposal along IWF 13 berms, general disturbance of both onsite and offsite biota associated with increased vehicular 14 and vessel traffic, and the effects of noise, vibration, and area lighting. Specific construction- 15 related impacts that could affect aquatic T&E species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are mainly 16 associated with activities occurring at nearshore locations bordering Biscayne Bay or Card 17 Sound, or in-water activities occurring at the northern end of the Turkey Point site; these 18 impacts may include the following: 19  habitat loss or alteration on the Turkey Point peninsula related to the construction of the 20 RCW system and associated saltwater pipeline; 21  release of effluents, dewatering constituents, or stormwater during construction activities; 22  effects related to noise, vibration, or light related to construction activities on nearshore 23 aquatic resources; 24  habitat loss, alteration, or increased water turbidity associated with the expansion of the 25 existing equipment barge-unloading area and excavation and dredging in the vicinity of the 26 existing barge-turning basin; and 27  increased tug and barge traffic to support construction activities that could result in fatal or 28 nonfatal collisions with sea turtles present near the barge-unloading area and turning basin.

29 4.1.1 Turkey Point Site

30 Many of the upland construction activities associated with the proposed Units 6 and 7 would not 31 occur in the vicinity of nearshore locations adjacent to Biscayne Bay, and would have minimal 32 impacts on species under the jurisdiction of NMFS. There is a possibility, however, that activity 33 at the site would result in stormwater runoff, or noise and light emissions that may affect some 34 species in the vicinity of Turkey Point. In addition, the habitat disturbance, light, effluent 35 discharges, and vibrations associated with the construction of the RCW system on the Turkey 36 Point peninsula may affect listed species frequenting nearshore locations of Biscayne Bay.

4-1 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 4.1.1.1 Plant Area, Supporting Infrastructure, and Pipelines

2 The nuclear power blocks, makeup-water reservoir, switchyard, cooling towers, and related 3 infrastructure associated with proposed Units 6 and 7 would occupy approximately 218 ac at the 4 northeast edge of the existing IWF (FPL 2014-TN4058). This area has been characterized by 5 FPL as a sparsely vegetated hypersaline mudflat that is partially isolated from tidal influence by 6 the IWF.

7 As described in the ER (FPL 2014-TN4058), wetland and aquatic habitats within the proposed 8 Units 6 and 7 plant area and adjacent laydown areas include approximately 187.5 ac of 9 mudflats, 25 ac of remnant and active canals, 17 ac of dwarf mangroves, 16 ac of open-water 10 habitat, 12 ac of mangrove heads, and 10 ac of wetland spoil areas. Based on pre-application 11 monitoring data from Tetra Tech NUS (FPL 2009-TN201), fish present on the site represent 12 hardy species common to South Florida. No rare, unusual, sensitive, or protected species were 13 observed. During the excavation and construction of proposed Units 6 and 7, FPL estimates 14 the maximum dewatering rate would be 1,200 gpm (1.73 Mgd) for 1 year. This water, and other 15 effluents or stormwater associated with construction activities, would be discharged into the 16 IWF. As described in ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058), construction-related noise can reach 17 100 dBA at 100 ft from the source of the sound. However, at 400 ft from the sound source, 18 noise levels are predicted to drop to within 60 to 80 dBA, a level that is unlikely to startle wildlife 19 according to FPL. Construction and building activities in the plant area will include installation of 20 temporary sheet piling to minimize the impacts of muck removal and other construction activities 21 to the IWF. Noise estimates developed by FPL suggest maximum aerial noise levels near the 22 existing Turkey Point units would be approximately 82 dB; sound levels in Biscayne Bay would 23 be approximately 70dB or less (FPL 2014-TN3717). The significance of these noise estimates 24 is discussed below.

25 4.1.1.2 Radial Collector Well Construction and Saltwater Pipeline

26 As described in ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058) and SCA Chapter 5 (FPL 2012-TN2582), 27 the RCWs would be constructed on previously disturbed uplands at the northern edge of the 28 Turkey Point site. Approximately 3 ac of land would be used for the RCWs and associated 29 facilities, an additional 3 ac of industrial/fill habitat would be needed for a construction area, and 30 approximately 13 ac of land would be disturbed during the construction of the water-supply 31 pipelines to the new units (FPL 2014-TN4058). Each radial well would consist of a central 32 reinforced caisson extending below ground level and lateral pipes extending approximately 33 900 ft from the caisson underneath Biscayne Bay at a maximum depth of approximately 25 to 34 40 ft. During lateral drilling, best management practices would be used to reduce the potential 35 for surface-water or sediment disturbance. During operation, water from the well laterals 36 (horizontal collector lines) would flow to collection caissons and be pumped via pipelines to 37 Units 6 and 7. These water-supply lines would involve excavation on the Turkey Point 38 peninsula and the existing berm east of the plant, and would cross canals, waterways, 39 mangrove swamps, and fill areas, resulting in impacts on approximately 13 ac (FPL 2014- 40 TN4058). A general concern related to construction activities on the Turkey Point peninsula is 41 the potential for disturbance or loss of mangrove habitat that supports important aquatic 42 species, including the endangered Smalltooth Sawfish. FPL has indicated that RCW caissons 43 would be installed primarily in areas of existing upland fill and roadways to avoid affecting

4-2 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 adjacent mangrove wetlands and nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay. FPL expects pipeline 2 installation to result in temporary impacts on approximately 3 ac of mangrove wetlands. After 3 installation, these areas would be backfilled with native soil and allowed to naturally re-vegetate 4 (FPL 2012-TN2582). Construction of the saltwater pipeline from the Turkey Point peninsula to 5 Units 6 and 7 would result in the disturbance of approximately 13 ac of land within the Turkey 6 Point site boundaries. FPL proposes to use best management practices to limit runoff to 7 nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay (FPL 2014-TN3717). Water or effluent associated with RCW 8 construction would be discharged into the IWF and not directly released into nearshore areas. 9 The review team determined that noise, vibration, or light associated with the creation of the 10 RCW caissons and lateral drilling may affect aquatic T&E species that are present at nearshore 11 locations in Biscayne Bay near the Turkey Point peninsula, however the disturbance will be 12 localized and temporary.

13 FPL contractors determined that installation of RCW laterals using microtunneling technology 14 would generate a maximum of 120 dB re 1Pa at 1 m from the drill head, and drilling would 15 occur 25 to 40 ft below the bottom of Biscayne Bay (FPL 2014-TN3717). This same analysis 16 concluded that sound and vibration would dissipate as it moved upward through the limestone 17 and bottom sediments to the sediment-water interface at the bottom of Biscayne Bay 18 (FPL 2014-TN3717). The significance of these noise and vibration emissions are discussed 19 below.

20 4.1.2 Nearshore Locations in Biscayne Bay and Card Sound

21 Noise, light, and vibration from construction activities occurring near the shoreline of Biscayne 22 Bay have the potential to affect aquatic T&E species. In addition, shoreline or in-water work at 23 the northern end of the Turkey Point property may also affect aquatic T&E, as described below.

24 4.1.2.1 Dredging and Construction Activities Related to the Equipment Barge-Unloading 25 Area

26 To support construction activities, the equipment barge-unloading area located at the 27 northeastern portion of the Turkey Point site would need to be expanded. As described in the 28 ER (FPL 2014-TN4058), this area would be expanded to a total area of approximately 0.75 ac, 29 which would involve the dredging of approximately 0.1 ac in the turning basin. FPL (FPL 2014- 30 TN4058) describes a survey of the area that showed sparse growth of seagrasses and algae 31 within the turning basin. FPL expects dredging to result in temporary impacts on water quality 32 because of increased turbidity, and would use turbidity curtains, silt screens, or similar 33 technologies to minimize impacts (FPL 2012-TN2582). Material dredged from the turning basin 34 would be placed in designated spoils-disposal areas located on existing berms within the IWF. 35 FPL has submitted an application to USACE for a permit to dredge under the Clean Water Act, 36 Section 404(b)(1) “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material” (40 37 CFR 230) (TN427), as described in the ER (FPL 2014-TN4058). Based on the scope of 38 dredging and proposed expansion of the equipment barge-unloading area, episodes of 39 increased total suspended solids and turbidity are expected to occur, resulting in temporary 40 nearfield effects. During these activities, it is likely that any sea turtles present in the area would 41 relocate to other parts of Biscayne Bay.

4-3 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 The potential for impacts from in-water or nearshore construction activities at the equipment 2 barge-unloading area is discussed in FPL 2014 (FPL 2014-TN3717), as follows: Noise or 3 vibration-producing activities are primarily associated with pulsed sound associated with sheet- 4 pile installation in the equipment barge-unloading area, which would occur over a 2-week 5 period. In addition, dredging activities may result in short-term effects to water quality. FPL 6 used numerical models and other sources of information to calculate impact radii corresponding 7 to the threshold for auditory injury (180 dB root mean square [RMS]) and behavioral response 8 changes (160 dB RMS). Given predicted noise levels at the sheet-pile installation location of 9 220 dB peak pressure and 194 dB cumulative sound exposure, auditory injury to marine 10 mammals is possible at a distance of 131 ft from the sheet-pile installation site, and behavioral 11 responses could occur up to 607 ft from the site (FPL 2014-TN3717). The significance of the 12 noise modeling estimates is discussed below.

13 4.1.2.2 Increased Barge and Vessel Traffic

14 As stated in FPL’s ER (FPL 2014-TN4058), there are currently five to seven barge deliveries of 15 fuel oil per week at the Turkey Point barge-unloading area. Based on FPL’s decision to place 16 existing Units 1 and 2 into synchronous condenser mode operation (FPL 2013-TN2630), the 17 current deliveries will likely decrease significantly, but during the 6-year construction period, 18 approximately 80 additional deliveries of construction equipment and modules would occur 19 (FPL 2014-TN4058). Potential effects on aquatic resources from increased barge and tug traffic 20 include short-term changes in water turbidity during vessel movements, and the potential for 21 fatal or nonfatal encounters between tug/barge tandems and sea turtles.

22 Given the 7 ft depth of the entrance channel, water turbidity during tug/barge transit would likely 23 increase, but the effects are expected to be short-term, and similar to existing turbidity levels 24 that occur during wind-induced wave events in shallow-water areas of Biscayne Bay. FPL has 25 acknowledged that increased barge and vessel traffic may create a hazard to aquatic species, 26 especially manatee known to frequent the equipment barge-unloading area, and developed a 27 Barge Delivery Plan to establish protective procedures during deliveries (FPL 2009-TN169; 28 FPL 2012-TN2768). Potential effects of construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 on manatee 29 are discussed in the BA for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) in Appendix F-2. The review team 30 expects that collision hazards to manatee would also exist for sea turtles present in nearshore 31 areas of Biscayne Bay or traveling in the vicinity of the entrance channel and equipment barge- 32 unloading area during construction events.

33 Recent work by Bernhart (NMFS 2009-TN1475) that focused on the threats to aquatic T&E 34 species from dock and marina construction in the coastal waters of Florida suggests the risk of 35 large coastal construction projects is minimal to sea turtles. Using a risk model that compared 36 vessel traffic trends for coastal Florida to sea turtle stranding data from the Sea Turtle Stranding 37 and Salvage Network (STSSN), the author concluded that a massive marina construction 38 project would result in a single sea turtle strike every 2.9 years.

4-4 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 4.1.3 Transmission-Line Corridors

2 Based on the existing assessments of aquatic species present in the proposed transmission-line 3 corridors described in Section 2.0, it is unlikely that any aquatic T&E species under the 4 jurisdiction of NMFS would be present in these areas. Thus, the review team considers 5 construction-related impacts of transmission-line installation to be negligible and are not 6 discussed further.

7 4.2 Impacts of Operation

8 This section provides information about the potential impacts of operation of the proposed Units 9 6 and 7 on aquatic resources. Because a conventional water intake is not used for Units 6 and 10 7, species impingement and entrainment impacts are eliminated. Reclaimed wastewater from 11 the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer District (MDSWD) would arrive at the site via pipeline, and 12 does not contain T&E species. During RCW operation, impingement and entrainment of 13 species is highly unlikely, and could only occur if a significant fracture of the limestone above 14 the RCW laterals occurred. For either cooling-water option, thermal impacts on T&E species 15 under the jurisdiction of NMFS would be eliminated because cooling-tower blowdown would be 16 discharged into the Boulder Zone via deep-aquifer industrial injection wells located onsite. 17 Adverse impacts on T&E species are possible, however, from deposition of chemicals and 18 constituents from drift from the cooling towers regardless of water source, and there is also a 19 potential that extended operation of the RCW system could affect nearshore salinity in Biscayne 20 Bay, indirectly affecting aquatic Federally listed species. Noise and light emissions from 21 proposed Units 6 and 7 may also affect sensitive species.

22 4.2.1 Use of Reclaimed Water from the MDSWD

23 As discussed above, the primary stressor to T&E species during the operation of proposed 24 Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 using reclaimed wastewater is the deposition of chemicals and 25 constituents in aquatic systems. While using treated reclaimed wastewater as the source for 26 makeup water, FPL would operate the cooling system to achieve four cycles of concentration 27 (FPL 2014-TN4058). Any residual contaminants in the treated reclaimed wastewater could thus 28 be concentrated in the cooling-water system due to evaporative losses during cooling, although 29 any individual contaminant could also have losses due to volatilization and environmental 30 decay, thereby decreasing the concentration. The pretreatment of reclaimed wastewater prior 31 to use in the cooling system would be expected to reduce contaminants in the makeup water, 32 but may not be capable of removing them entirely.

33 During cooling-tower operation, small droplets of water (drift) and salt particles would be emitted 34 from the cooling towers (on the order of 8 gal per minute total for both units). As a result, 35 potential contaminants in the MDSWD water not removed by pretreatment, including priority 36 pollutants and contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), could be deposited on the area 37 surrounding the cooling towers, potentially resulting in deposition to nearshore areas of 38 Biscayne Bay. As described in the NRC EIS, NUREG-2176, the review team performed a 39 screening-level assessment to identify the chemicals or constituents that might be present in 40 both reclaimed water from MDWASD and Biscayne Bay seawater provided by the RCW system. 41 If numerical criteria were unavailable, the assessment compared the expected concentrations of

4-5 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 priority pollutants and CECs in processed reclaimed wastewater or Biscayne Bay seawater to 2 the State of Florida water-quality criteria or appropriate toxicological data. The screening-level 3 assessment included organic compounds, metals, and CECs. A number of sources of 4 information were used to determine the potential concentrations in reclaimed wastewater 5 (FPL 2012-TN263; Lietz and Meyer 2006-TN1005; Miami-Dade County 2011-TN1006). The 6 review team compared expected chemical concentrations derived from these sources of 7 information to State or Federal water-quality criteria, when available, or to toxicological effects 8 available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tox Net (EPA 2012-TN1525). 9 The review team referred to recent work by Brausch and Rand (2011-TN1002) to assess the 10 toxicological effects of CECs, because water-quality criteria have not been established for many 11 of these chemicals. Where the review team identified toxicological benchmarks, the no 12 observed effects concentrations (NOECs) for sensitive, representative aquatic species provide a 13 conservative assessment. When possible, the review team used the NOECs for mortality of the 14 water flea (Daphnia magna) as a toxicological benchmark, because this species is extensively 15 used to support water-quality studies and is sensitive to many types of contaminants. As 16 described above, the review team retained and evaluated chemicals present in reclaimed 17 wastewater or Biscayne Bay seawater above established water-quality limits considered 18 protective of aquatic resources for fate and effects, as discussed in Section 5.2 of the NRC EIS, 19 NUREG-2176. For chemicals without established water-quality criteria, including most CECs, 20 the review team chose to include those present at greater than 1/10 of a toxicological 21 benchmark to be protective of aquatic resources in fate and effects evaluations. Based on the 22 screening-level assessment, the review team evaluated 11 organic and inorganic contaminants 23 and total dissolved solids (TDS) for deposition when reclaimed wastewater was used, and TDS, 24 chloride, and sulfide assessed when cooling water was obtained from Biscayne Bay using the 25 RCW system (Table 4-1).

26 The review team determined drift deposition by the flow rate through the cooling towers and 27 TDS concentration of the cooling water for each water source. The review team used the 28 CALPUFF model to independently compute drift-deposition rates from the cooling towers. 29 Using the total drift deposition of salt computed by the CALPUFF model for both reclaimed 30 wastewater and Biscayne Bay marine water, the review team estimated chemical contamination 31 and salt deposition for areas within or adjacent to the Turkey Point site (Table 4-1). With the 32 exception of TDS, calculated depositional rates were very low, ranging from 7.5 x 10-10 to 2 x 10- 33 7 g/m2-month. The significance of these numbers with respect to adverse effects on T&E 34 species is discussed in Section 6.0 below. A complete discussion of modeling approaches, 35 assumptions, and input data is provided in the NRC EIS, Sections 2.3.3 and 5.2.1 (NUREG- 36 2176.

4-6 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Table 4-1. Estimated Deposition Rates for TDS and Constituent (C) Concentrations for 2 Reclaimed Wastewater and Biscayne Bay Seawater on Aquatic Resources at or 3 near the Turkey Point Site Resulting from Cooling-Tower Operation

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

4 4.2.2 Operation of the Radial Collector Well System 5 Operation of the RCW system to supply cooling water to proposed Units 6 and 7 could affect 6 aquatic T&E species or their prey through impingement or entrainment if preferential flow 7 pathways through the limestone above the well lateral occur through fracturing (i.e., frac-out), 8 through increased salt or constituent loading to nearshore areas from cooling-tower deposition, 9 or by alteration of natural salinity regimes resulting from withdrawal of Biscayne Bay seawater. 10 The description of these potential effects and their impacts on aquatic T&E is described below.

4-7 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 In Section 5.2 of the NRC EIS (NUREG-2176), the review team assessed the potential for 2 impingement and entrainment of larval fish and invertebrates from RCW system operation. 3 Using the same operational scenarios evaluated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and 4 described in Section 5.3.2, the review team assessed the potential for impingement and 5 entrainment of larval fish and invertebrates from radial collector well operation. Based on the 6 assumption that the radial collector well laterals would be located 25 to 40 ft beneath Biscayne 7 Bay, the team estimated the average vertical velocity of saltwater approaching the bay bottom 8 to be 0.0003 ft/min (0.000152 cm/sec) if all the pumped water flowed into the bay bed within a 9 polygon encircling the radial collector well laterals. The review team estimated a worst-case 10 approach velocity to be 0.3 ft/min (0.0152 cm/sec) using assumptions similar to those described 11 above and substrate permeability 1,000 times greater than the average permeability (NRC EIS, 12 NUREG-2176 Section 5.2.1.2). Because these estimated vertical velocities are orders of 13 magnitude smaller than the near-bottom current speeds measured by McAdory et al. (2002- 14 TN1155) during ebb and flood events at nearshore locations in Biscayne Bay, the review team 15 concludes that the tidal and wind-driven currents would provide a much greater influence at the 16 sediment-water interface, and impingement and entrainment impacts would likely be negligible 17 during radial collector well operation. If, however, the limestone above the radial collector well 18 laterals were to fracture (e.g., frac-out), preferential flow patterns associated with radial collector 19 well operation could noticeably alter flow dynamics at some locations surrounding the Turkey 20 Point site, and the potential for impingement and entrainment could increase. The review team 21 does not know whether FPL would be able to detect such an event if it occurred. Because frac- 22 out effects would likely be confined to a small portion of Biscayne Bay above the radial collector 23 well laterals, which would be operated no more than 60 days per year, impingement and 24 entrainment effects would likely not be noticeable and would likely neither destabilize nor 25 noticeably alter aquatic ecosystems (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). Thus, the review team 26 expects that the effects of radial collector well operation on impingement and entrainment to be 27 minimal during the licensing period, and are unlikely to result in adverse effects on the aquatic 28 biota of Biscayne Bay or noticeably affect aquatic food webs used by Federally listed species 29 occurring near Turkey Point.

30 With regard to salt deposition, using the approach described above for reclaimed wastewater 31 use, the review team estimated deposition rates of TDS, chloride, and sulfide in aquatic 32 environments within or adjacent to Turkey Point property (including Biscayne Bay), and loading 33 results are summarized in Table 4-1. TDS loading to nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay was 34 estimated to be 0.1292 g/m2-month; chloride and sulfide loadings were 7.5 x 10-2 and 2.9 x 10-5 35 g/m2-month, respectively. The significance of these numbers with respect to adverse effects on 36 T&E species are discussed in Section 6.0 below. A complete discussion of modeling 37 approaches, assumptions, and input data is provided in NRC EIS Sections 2.3.3 and 5.2.1 38 (NUREG-2176).

39 To assess the potential for radial collector well operation to noticeably change nearshore salinity 40 patterns and adversely affect sensitive species, the review team evaluated historical salinity 41 data provided by the NPS and others to understand the inherent spatial and temporal variability 42 at nearshore and offshore locations in Biscayne Bay near Turkey Point. The team also 43 reviewed assessments of salinity impacts provided by FPL and the NPS, and a numerical model 44 developed by the USGS that compared existing (base case) salinity conditions to predicted 45 conditions under three radial collector well operational scenarios: 1) continuous radial collector

4-8 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 well pumping throughout the year (Scenarios A, B, and C), 2) repeated annual periods of 2 pumping of 3 months duration during the dry season followed by 9 months with no pumping 3 (Scenario D), and 3) repeated pumping periods of 30 days followed by 90 days of no pumping 4 (Scenarios E, F, and G). The review team evaluated the base case and Scenarios A 5 (continuous pumping) and D (3 months pumping followed by 9 months without pumping). A 6 description of the USGS model results is presented in NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Section 5.2.1.2.

7 The review team’s examination of time series indicated that variations in salinity from 8 continuous pumping were mostly within ±1 psu, with only transient increases to near 2 psu 9 (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Appendix G Figure 9). When the review team examined the USGS 10 modeled spatial distribution results using real time data when salinity time-series differences 11 had an increase (10/3/2003), the model showed the increase (which was less than +2 psu) 12 occurred in a relatively small area north of Turkey Point (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Appendix G, 13 Figure 10). When the review team examined the modeled spatial distribution results at the time 14 when real salinity time-series differences showed a decrease (10/25/2004), the modeled 15 decrease (which was greater than -2 psu) occurred in a relatively small area north of Turkey 16 Point (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Appendix F, Figure 11). These modeled results show minimal 17 variation in salinity with continuous radial collector well pumping. The review team noted that 18 the actual duration of pumping would not be continuous because the FDEP permit conditions 19 require that pumping be limited to 60 days or less per year (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). A 20 shorter duration would allow time for the groundwater system to recover following radial 21 collector well pumping and limit the entrainment of saltwater from Biscayne Bay. Therefore, the 22 review team concludes that the effect on Biscayne Bay salinity from any permitted pumping 23 would be much reduced from the already minimal salinity change predicted by the USGS 24 modeling analyses.

25 As described above, with intermittent operation of the proposed units 6 and 7 using the RCW 26 system, the potential for species impingement or entrainment would be highly unlikely because 27 Biscayne Bay water withdrawal would occur 20 to 40 ft below the sediment surface via the well 28 laterals, and the downwelling velocity would be significantly lower than the sweeping current 29 speeds observed during tidal cycles (Section 5.3.2 of NRC EIS, NUREG-2176). If, however, 30 significant fracturing of the limestone above the laterals was to occur, entrainment of some 31 small organisms may be possible, but would likely be confined to a small portion of Biscayne 32 Bay and would only occur during RCW operation.

33 4.2.3 Cooling-Tower Blowdown

34 As described in Section 3.4.2.3 of the NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 cooling-tower blowdown water 35 and other plant wastewater would be discharged to the deep Boulder Zone via Class I industrial 36 injection wells located at depths of 3,000 to 3,200 ft in the Lower Floridian aquifer. Cooling- 37 tower blowdown water is the cooling water that does not evaporate or drift from the towers, but 38 is routed back to the cooling-tower basin at the base of each tower. Because evaporation of 39 water from the cooling tower increases the concentration of dissolved solids in the cooling 40 water, a portion of the blowdown water would be removed and replaced with makeup water from 41 the makeup-water system. Because no listed species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are 42 present in the Boulder Zone formations, adverse impacts on these species would not occur.

4-9 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 4.2.4 Noise and Light Emissions

2 As described above, Section 6 of the SCA (FPL 2012-TN2582) and (FPL 2014-TN3717) 3 provides an assessment of likely noise and light emissions from proposed Units 6 and 7, as well 4 as the existing plant (Units 1−5). In general, noise emissions exceeding 60 dB would be 5 confined to plant property, and would be unlikely to affect aquatic T&E species at nearshore 6 locations of Biscayne Bay (SCA Section 6.7). Site lighting required by the NRC and the 7 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would result in localized light emissions 8 from Units 6 and 7 that would be visible as sky glow. Use of Illuminating Engineering Society of 9 North America guidelines to the extent possible, while meeting NRC and OSHA standards, 10 would result in minimal light impacts from Units 6 and 7 (SCA Section 6.9.2). Given the location 11 of the Turkey Point facility with respect to Biscayne National Park, it may also be prudent to 12 consider the interim outdoor lighting guidelines provided in NPS 2007-TN3449.

4-10 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 5.0 Baseline Conditions for Aquatic Species

2 This section describes the baseline conditions for aquatic species listed in Table 1-1, which may 3 occur on and in the vicinity of the proposed Turkey Point site and associated transmission-line 4 corridors.

5 5.1 Whales

6 The distribution of endangered whales listed in Table 1-1 is worldwide. While there are no 7 specific habitats or surface-water areas used by these whales in the vicinity of the Turkey Point 8 plant, all of the species included in Table 1-1, with the exception of the blue whale 9 (Balaenoptera musculus), have been occasionally sighted in Biscayne Bay (NPS 2012- 10 TN1849). Finback or fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) are commonly found in deep offshore 11 waters or all major oceans in temperate to polar latitudes. The estimated population in the 12 western North Atlantic is less than 1,700 individuals (NOAA 2012-TN1850). Humpback whales 13 (Megaptera novaeangliae) are found in all major oceans and latitudes. This species feeds in 14 the spring, summer, and fall months along the eastern coast of North America, and mates and 15 calves in the winter months in the West Indies. The North Atlantic population is estimated to be 16 11,500 individuals (NPS 2012-TN1849). North Atlantic or northern right whales (Eubalaena 17 glacialis) historically occurred in all of the world’s oceans, primarily in coastal or shelf waters. 18 Approximately 300 to 400 individuals compose the western North Atlantic population, which 19 occurs in coastal waters of Florida and Georgia during the winter, and off the coast of New 20 England and in the Bay of Fundy in the summer (NPS 2012-TN1849). Sei whales are large 21 baleen whales that are found in subtropical to subpolar waters along the continental shelf. The 22 current worldwide population is estimated to be 80,000 individuals, but the population of the 23 western North Atlantic stock is unknown (NPS 2012-TN1849). Sperm whales (Physeter 24 macrocephalus) are the largest toothed whales, reaching a length of more than 50 ft and 25 weighing as much as 45 tons. Sperm whales are generally found in water depths of 2,000 ft or 26 more, and are uncommon in water less than 900 ft deep. The North Atlantic stock, comprised of 27 approximately 4,700 individuals, is generally found east and northeast of Cape Hatteras 28 (NPS 2012-TN1849). Because these species are not common to Biscayne Bay, and suitable 29 habitat is not available in the vicinity of Turkey Point, the review team determined that impacts 30 on the whale species listed in Table 1-1 are not considered further in this review.

31 5.2 Sea Turtles

32 There are two families and six genera of living sea turtles comprising eight species (Sea Turtle 33 Conservancy 2011-TN1898). All but one of the species are in the family Cheloniidae; the 34 leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is the only living member of the family 35 Dermochelyidae. Five of the eight living species of sea turtles have been identified by NMFS as 36 occurring in the Florida-Atlantic region (Table 1-1), including the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta 37 caretta), the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the leatherback sea turtle (D. coriacea), the 38 hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys 39 kempii). The U.S. Department of the Interior, under the authority of the ESA, lists the 40 loggerhead sea turtles as threatened. Hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and the Florida 41 nesting population of green sea turtles are listed as endangered. Each of these species nests

5-1 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 along the coasts of Florida, but no critical habitat has been designated in the State for any of 2 them. Although the hatchlings of many species will spend their first few years in open-ocean 3 environments, juveniles will often return to nearshore coastal areas to forage, and thus may be 4 present in areas of Biscayne Bay near the Turkey Point facility. The initiation of a 5-year review 5 of Kemp’s ridley, olive ridley, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles was recently announced by 6 NMFS (77 FR 61573) (TN2678). A 5-year review of the green sea turtle was completed in 2007 7 (NOAA and FWS 2007-TN1587) and a petition to delist the Hawaiian population was received 8 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2012 (NOAA 2012- 9 TN1851). A status review for the loggerhead turtle was completed in 2009 (Conant et al. 2009- 10 TN1673), and a draft revised recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley turtle was developed by NOAA 11 and FWS in 2010 (NOAA 2012-TN1851; NMFS et al. 2010-TN1691).

12 Nesting and stranding data obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 13 Commission (FFWCC 2012-TN4120) is presented in Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 for the years 14 from 1986 to 2007. Sea turtle nests have been reported along the South Florida Coast, barrier 15 islands, and Florida Keys, but not within Biscayne Bay. Based on FFWCC data, the nearest 16 nesting site appears to be approximately 9 nautical miles north and east (~64 degrees 17 magnetic) of Turkey Point near the Lewis Cut on the eastern side of Biscayne Bay (Figure 5-1). 18 Stranding data provided by FFWCC from 1986 through 2007 for nearshore locations in the 19 vicinity of Turkey Point show strandings are generally rare near the Turkey Point site, and 20 usually involve loggerhead turtles when they do occur. Loggerhead turtle strandings have 21 occurred in nearshore regions at the southern end of the site, off the Turkey Point peninsula, 22 and near the equipment barge-unloading facility. Green turtles have been found in waters off 23 the Turkey Point peninsula and nearshore locations north of the site (Figure 5-2).

24 The STSSN at NOAA’s Southeast Fisheries Science Center now maintains sea turtle stranding 25 data (NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067). Recent stranding information for Zone 25 (which includes 26 Biscayne Bay) for 2007 through November 1, 2014 is presented in Table 5-1. STSSN defines 27 offshore strandings as those that occur on ocean beaches, and inshore strandings as those that 28 occur on bays, rivers, sounds, or inlets. From 2008 to 2012, a total of 331 loggerhead, green, 29 hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback turtles were stranded, and the majority of the 30 strandings were reported at offshore locations (NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067). Green and 31 loggerhead turtles represented the majority of the strandings (Table 5-1). Based on this 32 information, and the turtle stranding observations for areas near Turkey Point, the review team 33 concludes that green and loggerhead sea turtles would be most affected by construction and 34 operational impacts from proposed Units 6 and 7, followed by hawksbill sea turtles. The 35 remaining species (Kemp’s ridley and leatherback) would be less affected by the construction 36 and operation of the proposed Units 6 and 7, given their scarcity in Biscayne Bay. What follows 37 is a discussion of the life histories, habitat needs, status and distribution, recent occurrence in 38 the project area, and factors contributing to observed declines for each of the five turtle species 39 expected to occur in Biscayne Bay. Unless otherwise noted, the review team obtained life 40 history and related information from NOAA’s Protected Species Website (NOAA 2012-TN1851) 41 and recent population distribution (2007 to November 1, 2014) in Zone 25, which includes the 42 Turkey Point site, from STSSN (NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067). 43

5-2 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2 Figure 5-1. Location of Sea Turtle Nests and Stranding Locations in South Florida, 3 1986−2007 (FFWCC 2012-TN4120)

5-3 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2 Figure 5-2. Location of Sea Turtle Strandings by Species Near Turkey Point from 3 1986−2007 (FFWCC 2012-TN4120)

5-4 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Table 5-1. Summary of Green, Loggerhead, Hawksbill, Leatherback, and Kemp’s Ridley 2 Sea Turtle Stranding Data for Zone 25, 2007−2014

Total Turtle Strandings, Zone 25 Offshore Inshore Total Percent Percent Year Strandings Strandings Strandings Offshore Inshore 2007 43 32 75 57 43 2008 39 21 60 65 35 2009 67 34 101 66 34 2010 50 23 73 68 32 2011 38 25 63 60 40 2012 45 21 66 68 32 2013 39 29 68 57 43 2014 23 38 61 38 62 Total 344 223 567 61 39 Turtle Strandings by Species, 2007−2014 Green 205 104 309 66 34 Loggerhead 103 106 205 50 50 Hawksbill 31 10 41 76 24 Leatherback 3 0 3 100 0 Kemp’s ridley 2 3 5 40 60 Source: NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067 (through November 1, 2014) http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/strandings.htm

3 5.2.1 Green Sea Turtle

4 5.2.1.1 Life History

5 The green sea turtle is the largest of the hard-shelled turtles, attaining a length of approximately 6 3 ft (1 m) and a weight of 300 to 350 lb (135−160 kg). This species is exclusively herbivorous; it 7 feeds on seagrass and algae. This diet may be responsible for the presence of greenish- 8 colored fat, from which their name is derived. Sexual maturity is believed to occur between the 9 ages of 20 and 50 years, and females generally nest in the southeastern United States from 10 June to September, and peak nesting occurs in June and July. Nests usually contain 11 approximately 135 eggs, and nesting occurs at 2-week intervals. Eggs typically incubate about 12 2 months before hatching. After hatching, juveniles move to offshore areas where they live for 13 several years, feeding on a variety of pelagic plants and animals close to the surface. As 14 juveniles grow, they gradually move from pelagic habitats to nearshore areas to forage.

15 5.2.1.2 Habitat Needs

16 Green sea turtles spend the majority of their lives along coastlines or barrier islands, or in 17 protected bays and lagoons where they forage for food. While in these areas, turtles exhibit site 18 fidelity to specific home ranges, and primarily consume marine algae and seagrass, and turtle 19 grass (Thalassia testudinum) as a major component of their diet. Oceanic habitats are used by 20 juveniles and migrating adults, but this aspect of a turtle’s life is poorly understood and it is 21 unclear how environmental factors in these habitats influence juvenile survival, adult migration, 22 and prey availability (NOAA and FWS 2007-TN1587). As described above, juvenile turtles in

5-5 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 pelagic, ocean environments feed on plants and animals close to the surface. Preferred nesting 2 habitat includes beaches with intact dune structures, native vegetation, and a constant 3 temperature to ensure successful egg incubation. Coastal areas lacking vegetation may affect 4 thermal regimes that affect incubation and resulting sex ratios. Sea-level rise may also affect 5 future nesting habitat (NOAA and FWS 2007-TN1587). Critical habitat for green sea turtles was 6 designated in 1998 for coastal waters around Culebra Island, Puerto Rico. No critical habitat is 7 designated near the Turkey Point site.

8 5.2.1.3 Status and Distribution

9 Federally threatened green sea turtles are found globally in tropical and subtropical waters 10 along coasts and islands between 30 degrees north latitude and 30 degrees south latitude. The 11 largest nesting populations are found at Tortugero, on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica, and 12 Raine Island, on the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. Nesting has been reported in 80 countries, 13 and turtles are believed to occur in over 140 countries. In the United States, nests occur 14 primarily along the central and southeast coast of Florida, where estimates of nesting females 15 range from 200 to more than 1,000 individuals. Recent abundance estimates from 2001−2005 16 for green turtle nesting rookeries in Florida suggest a total population of approximately 5,000 17 individuals that appears to be increasing (NOAA and FWS 2007-TN1587). Nesting populations 18 in Florida appear to be increasing based on 18 years of data (1989−2006). Increases are 19 probably associated with several factors, including prohibitions on killing turtles enacted in the 20 1970s, the 1973 ESA listing, passage of legislation that reduced takes from fishing nets, and the 21 legal protection afforded this species when nesting in Florida (NOAA and FWS 2007-TN1587). 22 Turtles hatched on Florida beaches migrate along the coast, and they are also found throughout 23 the wider Caribbean. Data from STSSN from 2008−2012 indicate that a total of 185 green turtle 24 strandings were reported in Zone 25, which includes Biscayne Bay (NOAA 2012-TN1674). The 25 majority were found at offshore (ocean beach) locations (Table 5-1).

26 5.2.1.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline

27 As described by NOAA and FWS (NOAA and FWS 2007-TN1587), the determination to list a 28 species under ESA is based on an assessment of five factors, including (1) present or 29 threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 30 commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) prevalence of disease or 31 predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms designed to protect the species; 32 and (5) other natural or man-made factors that affect the continuing existence of the species 33 (NOAA and FWS 2007-TN1587). The ESA requires that subsequent 5-year reviews make 34 determinations about listing status based, in part, on assessment of the same factors (16 USC 35 1531 et seq. - TN1010). While there are no known nesting beaches near the Turkey Point site 36 or within Biscayne Bay, habitat destruction related to coastal development may still affect this 37 species or seagrass communities on which it depends. Thus, large-scale anthropogenic 38 changes to coastal areas that affect ecological connectivity and function may influence existing 39 or future populations, but the effect of these actions on the proportion of the population visiting 40 Biscayne Bay is not known. Likewise, hunting or foraging of sea turtles or turtle eggs is not 41 allowed in Florida and would not directly affect green sea turtles visiting Biscayne Bay, but could 42 be a contributing factor to worldwide population levels. Disease processes, like 43 fibropapillomatosis, have been documented in sea turtles stranded in Florida, but population-

5-6 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 level impacts related to the effects of this disease or others are not fully understood NOAA and 2 FWS 2007-TN1587). As described above, ESA listing is believed to be a contributing factor to 3 observed population increases in green sea turtle populations in the United States, and fishery 4 protection laws like the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 5 USC 1801 et seq.) (TN1061) requiring responsible fishing practices and limiting turtle bycatch 6 have also contributed to population recovery, though incidental losses from fishing gear still 7 remain a concern. With regard to man-made factors affecting green turtle populations in 8 Florida, boat strikes have been shown to be a major mortality source (NOAA and FWS 2007- 9 TN1587). Recent information available from STSNN from 2008−2012 suggests that while some 10 of the stranded turtles appear to be the victims of boat/propeller strikes, determination of the 11 cause of death for many is confounded by the state of decomposition present in carcasses or 12 the absence of external trauma (NOAA 2012-TN1842).

13 5.2.1.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area

14 NMFS and FWS currently list the breeding populations of green turtles in Florida as 15 endangered, while all other populations are considered threatened. Although nesting areas 16 have not been found within Biscayne Bay or near Turkey Point, turtle strandings have occurred 17 near the Turkey Point site (Figure 5-2). Data from the STSSN (NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067) 18 for Zone 25 (which includes Biscayne Bay) is presented in Table 5-2. Between the years of 19 2007 and 2014, a total of 309 strandings or cold shocks have been reported in Zone 25, and 20 most occurred at offshore locations (NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067). Inshore strandings have 21 ranged from 8 to 26 individuals, with the highest occurrence in 2014 (Table 5-2).

22 Table 5-2. Green Sea Turtle Stranding Data for Zone 25, 2007 to 2014 Offshore Inshore Total Year Strandings Strandings Strandings 2007 18 9 27 2008 20 8 28 2009 42 18 60 2010 32 11 43 2011 23 8 31 2012 27 12 39 2013 26 12 38 2014 17 26 43 Total 205 104 309 Source: NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067 (through November 1, 2014) http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/strandings.htm

23 5.2.2 Loggerhead Sea Turtle

24 5.2.2.1 Life History

25 The loggerhead sea turtle attains a length of approximately 3 ft (1 m) and a weight of 250 lb 26 (113 kg), and reaches sexual maturity in approximately 35 years. The turtle derives its name 27 from the presence of a large head equipped with powerful jaws that allow it to prey on a variety 28 of shellfish, including whelks and conch. In the southeastern United States, nesting occurs in 29 late March to early June, and females lay eggs from about April to September. Three to five

5-7 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 nests per female per season are not uncommon, and eggs generally hatch between June and 2 November. Recently hatched turtles swim through the surf zone and live in areas where 3 surface waters converge to form local downwellings, such as areas between the Gulf Stream 4 and southeastern coast of the United States, and the Loop Current and the Gulf Coast of 5 Florida. Juveniles are eventually transported into the oceanic zone farther offshore, where they 6 remain for 7 to 12 years before migrating back to nearshore coastal areas where they mature.

7 5.2.2.2 Habitat Needs

8 Loggerhead turtles generally nest on ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines, 9 on wide, sandy beaches backed by low dunes. Preferred nesting habitat includes a low-profile 10 beach with easy access to water (Conant et al. 2009-TN1673). Preferred oceanic environments 11 include continental shelf waters from New York to Florida, the Bahamas, Cuba, and the Gulf of 12 Mexico where Sargassum sp. habitats occur, or where drift lines or convergence zones exist. 13 Juveniles transiting from oceanic environments are generally found in enclosed, shallow-water 14 estuarine environments with limited connection to the ocean, whereas areas with more open- 15 ocean access, like Chesapeake Bay, are used by juveniles and adults during warmer seasons 16 (Conant et al. 2009-TN1673). At 7 to 12 years of age, juveniles migrate to nearshore coastal 17 waters and continue maturing to adulthood. Although no critical habitat for the loggerhead sea 18 turtle is designated near the Turkey Point site, in July 2013 NMFS proposed 36 marine areas as 19 critical habitat within the range of the Northwest Atlantic distinct population segment (DPS), 20 which includes oceanic areas east of Biscayne Bay (Figure 5-3) (78 FR 43006) (TN2674).

21 5.2.2.3 Status and Distribution

22 Loggerhead turtles are a circumpolar species, occurring in temperate and tropical regions of the 23 Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. The loggerhead was first listed under the ESA as 24 threatened throughout its range on July 28, 1978, and the most recent status review was 25 published in 2009 (NOAA 2010-TN179). In 2010, the loggerhead turtle listing was changed to 26 identify nine DPS, with four DPS listed as threatened and five listed as endangered. The 27 loggerhead population in Biscayne Bay is included in the Northwest Atlantic DPS and 28 considered Federally threatened (75 FR 12598) (TN2763). Turtles are highly migratory, and 29 depending on life stage, may be found in oceanic waters, along coastlines, or within protected 30 bays. Loggerheads are the most abundant sea turtle found in the coastal waters of the United 31 States, with an estimated total of 68,000 to 90,000 nests per year. Populations in southeast 32 Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia appear to be declining. Along the U.S. 33 Atlantic coast, loggerhead turtle nests are found from Virginia through Alabama, and 34 approximately 80 percent of the loggerhead turtle nesting in Florida occurs in Brevard, Indian 35 River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward counties. In Brevard and Indian River 36 counties, the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, a 20 mi (32.3 km) stretch of coastline, is 37 considered the most important nesting area in the western hemisphere for this species. 38 Individuals transiting from open-ocean environments to coastal zones are found along the 39 continental shelf from Massachusetts to South Florida, the Bahamas, and the Gulf of Mexico in 40 water depths of 650 ft (200 m) or less. Shallow-water bays with open-ocean access, like Florida 41 Bay, provide year-round access to a significant number of adult turtles (Conant et al. 2009- 42 TN1673). A total of 115 turtle strandings were reported by the STSSN in Zone 25 between

5-8 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2008 and 2012 (NOAA 2012-TN1674). The majority were found at offshore (ocean beach) 2 locations (Table 5-1).

3 4 Figure 5-3. Loggerhead Sea Turtle Critical Habitat in Coastal Florida

5-9 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 5.2.2.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline

2 Threats to this species are similar to those described above for green sea turtles, and include 3 habitat destruction resulting from nearshore development and shoreline armoring, accidental 4 takes during trawling and dredging, direct and indirect effects of point and nonpoint pollution, 5 ingestion of marine debris, and deliberate hunting of turtles or eggs. Loggerhead turtles are 6 also susceptible to a variety of bacterial and fungal diseases, effects of harmful algal blooms, 7 and introduced species that affect egg development or survival. In addition, because this is a 8 highly migratory species that crosses international and regulatory boundaries, the lack of 9 regulation or enforcement in one country can jeopardize recovery efforts in another (Conant et 10 al. 2009-TN1673). Loggerhead turtles are also susceptible to collisions with boat hulls and 11 propellers, though it is difficult at times to determine the cause of death due to the condition of 12 the corpses (NOAA 2012-TN1842).

13 5.2.2.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area

14 As shown in Figure 5-2, loggerhead turtle strandings have occurred at or near Turkey Point 15 property from 1986 to 2007, but have been limited to a small number of individuals. Stranding 16 data obtained from STSSN for Zone 25 from 2007 to 2014 (NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067) show 17 a total of 205 documented strandings, with similar numbers occurring at offshore and nearshore 18 locations (Table 5-3).

19 Table 5-3. Loggerhead Sea Turtle Stranding Data for Zone 25, 2007 to 2014 Offshore Inshore Total Year Strandings Strandings Strandings 2007 19 21 40 2008 14 8 22 2009 19 16 35 2010 11 9 20 2011 11 17 28 2012 15 8 23 2013 9 17 26 2014 5 10 15 Total 103 106 205 Source: NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067 (through November 1, 2014) http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/strandings.htm

20 5.2.3 Hawksbill Sea Turtle

21 5.2.3.1 Life History

22 The hawksbill sea turtle is a small to medium-sized turtle; adults weigh between 100 and 150 lb 23 (45−70 kg) and reach a maximum length of approximately 35 in. (90 cm). This species is 24 capable of traveling long distances between nesting and feeding areas, and has documented 25 migrations of over 1,100 mi. Sexual maturity occurs when male turtles are about 27 in. (70 cm) 26 long and female turtles are about 30 in. (80 cm) long; age at sexual maturity is unknown. 27 Nesting occurs on sand beaches in the tropics and subtropics. As described above for other 28 species, post hatchlings are found in pelagic environments, often associated with floating algal

5-10 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 mats and drift lines, and older individuals return to coastal areas to forage and reproduce. 2 Hawksbill turtles exhibit slow growth rates, which appear to vary substantially within and among 3 populations and are probably related to available food, foraging duration, and turtle density 4 (NMFS/FWS 2007-TN1689).

5 5.2.3.2 Habitat Needs

6 Hawksbill turtles have a circumpolar distribution through the tropical and subtropical waters of 7 the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans. Given the highly migratory nature of this species, 8 hawksbill turtles encounter and use a variety of habitats during their lifetimes, including open- 9 water habitats, coral-reef environments, hard-bottom or seagrass habitats, and mangrove bays 10 and creeks. Nesting individuals need healthy beaches with intact dune structures, native 11 vegetation, and incubation temperatures conducive to egg development and hatching. Critical 12 habitat for this species is designated around Mona Island, Puerto Rico (NMFS and FWS 2013- 13 TN2507). Although this species is omnivorous, it often relies on algae and seagrass as a major 14 food source (NMFS/FWS 2007-TN1689).

15 5.2.3.3 Status and Distribution

16 Although their movement and migration patterns are not fully understood, it is believed that 17 hawksbill turtles are present in the coastal waters of more than 108 countries, and that nesting 18 occurs in at least 70 (NMFS/FWS 2007-TN1689). This species is Federally endangered in the 19 United States. Because hawksbill turtles are solitary nesters, determining population trends is 20 difficult, but it is believed the largest populations are located in the Caribbean, Republic of 21 Seychelles, Indonesia, and Australia. Approximately 2,000 nests have been documented on the 22 northwest coast of Australia, and approximately 6,000 to 8,000 occur off the Great Barrier Reef. 23 About 2,000 nests are reported in Indonesia each year, and 1,000 in the Republic of Seychelles. 24 Nesting within the continental United States occurs on the southeast coast of Florida and the 25 Florida Keys, but nest counts are believed to be low in those locations.

26 5.2.3.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline

27 Threats to this species are similar to those previously described for the green and hawksbill 28 turtles, and include habitat destruction, bycatch during commercial fishing, disease or predation, 29 inadequate or inconsistent international environmental regulations, and stresses imposed by 30 both human and natural activities. NOAA (NMFS/FWS 2007-TN1689) also suggests that 31 tropical coastline development to support tourism has resulted in habitat destruction and 32 interference with nesting activities and success.

33 5.2.3.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area

34 Stranding data obtained from FFWCC for Zone 25 from 1986 to 2007 (FFWCC 2012-TN4120) 35 and recent data obtained from the STSSN from 2007 to 2014 (NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067) 36 indicate that hawksbill sea turtles are rarely found near Turkey Point, and stranding generally 37 occurs at offshore (ocean beach) rather than nearshore locations in Zone 25 (Table 5-4).

5-11 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Table 5-4. Hawksbill Sea Turtle Stranding Data for Zone 25, 2007 to 2014 Offshore Inshore Total Year Strandings Strandings Strandings 2007 5 1 6 2008 4 4 8 2009 4 0 4 2010 7 3 10 2011 4 0 4 2012 3 1 4 2013 3 0 3 2014 1 1 2 Total 31 10 41 Source: NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067 (through November 1, 2014) http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/strandings.htm

2 5.2.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle

3 5.2.4.1 Life History

4 The leatherback sea turtle is the largest turtle in the world; adults weigh more than 2,000 lb (900 5 kg) and reach lengths of over 6.5 ft (2 m). This species is also considered the largest living 6 reptile, and is the only sea turtle that lacks a hard, bony shell. The carapace is covered with oil- 7 saturated connective tissue resembling leather in appearance and giving the turtle its distinctive 8 name. Females nest on sandy tropical beaches several times during nesting season, producing 9 approximately 100 eggs per event. After incubation of 60 to 65 days, hatchlings emerge and 10 enter pelagic habitats, where they are common as both juveniles and adults. Adults are also 11 common in coastal waters. This species is considered the most migratory and wide ranging of 12 the sea turtle species, and possesses a counter-current thermoregulatory adaptation that 13 enables them to tolerate colder water temperatures. As described by NMFS and FWS (2007- 14 TN1690), ongoing research on leatherback turtle biology and life history is expected to provide 15 important data on movements, behavior, habitat use, age at maturity, survival rates, and 16 density-dependent population regulation.

17 5.2.4.2 Habitat Needs

18 Leatherback turtles are generally found in pelagic, open-ocean environments, but are also 19 known to forage in coastal waters. Because they lack the crushing chew plates common to 20 other sea turtles, they feed primarily on soft-bodied prey available in open-ocean habitats, 21 including jellyfish and salps. Because this species exhibits weak beach fidelity with regard to 22 nesting, has the widest geographical distribution of any reptile, and is able to tolerate a range of 23 water temperatures, it may be better able to cope with the effects of climate change than other 24 sea turtle species (NMFS and FWS 2007-TN1690). No designated critical habitat for the 25 leatherback sea turtle exists near the Turkey Point site (77 FR 4170) (TN2677).

26 5.2.4.3 Status and Distribution

27 The nests of this Federally endangered species are found throughout the world, and the largest 28 known nesting assemblages occur on the coasts of northern South America and West Africa. 29 Minor nesting colonies are also found in the U.S. Caribbean and southeast Florida. Given their

5-12 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 ability to tolerate a wide range of water temperatures, leatherback turtles have been observed 2 along the entire continental coast of the United States from the Gulf of Maine to the Gulf of 3 Mexico. Distribution patterns are poorly understood, and low nesting site fidelity makes 4 estimation of their populations difficult. Leatherback turtle populations are generally believed to 5 be declining worldwide, but nesting appears to be increasing on U.S. beaches.

6 5.2.4.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline

7 Threats to this species include both anthropogenic and natural stressors that have the potential 8 to affect nesting and hatching success, food quality and availability, and long-term changes in 9 climate and ocean temperatures that alter food webs or result in additional anthropogenic 10 impacts on nesting areas from construction of seawalls or structures to protect infrastructure 11 from rising water levels or storm surge.

12 5.2.4.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area

13 Stranding data obtained from FFWCC for Zone 25 from 1986 to 2007 (FFWCC 2012-TN4120) 14 and recent data obtained from the STSSN from 2007 to 2014 (NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067) 15 indicate that leatherback sea turtles are rarely found in Biscayne Bay; only three documented 16 stranding events were reported, and all occurred from 2007-2009 for Zone 25 (Table 5-5).

17 Table 5-5. Leatherback Sea Turtle Stranding Data for Zone 25, 2007 to 2014 Offshore Inshore Total Year Strandings Strandings Strandings 2007 1 0 1 2008 1 0 1 2009 1 0 1 2010 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 Total 3 0 3 Source: NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067 (through November 1, 2014) http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/strandings.htm

18 5.2.5 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle

19 5.2.5.1 Life History

20 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are the smallest marine turtle in the world; adults weigh 100 lb (45 kg) 21 or less and attain lengths of 24 to 28 in. (60−70 cm). This sea turtle displays a highly 22 synchronized nesting behavior; females congregate off specific nesting beaches near Rancho 23 Nuevo, Mexico, and come ashore en masse (as a group) to nest. Nesting occurs from May to 24 July and females lay two to three clutches of approximately 100 eggs each that incubate for 50 25 to 60 days. Hatchlings immediately enter the water to avoid predators, and they develop in 26 oceanic environments where they are found in association with floating sargassum seaweed. 27 Development in this environment persists for approximately 2 years. Adult turtles are found in

5-13 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 nertic (nearshore) habitats where muddy or sandy bottoms occur, and they eat a variety of prey, 2 including crab, fish, jellyfish, and mollusks.

3 5.2.5.2 Habitat Needs

4 Nesting habitat available at the beach at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, is formed by low dunes, which 5 are isolated on the land side by shallow coastal lagoons that include small estuaries and 6 temporary sandbars. The dunes vary in height, and the sand is typically fine grained. These 7 areas are stabilized by the presence of coastal grasses, such as sea oats (Uniola sp.) and cord 8 grass (Spartina sp.). Nesting habitat along Texas beaches is variable and the beach profiles 9 and characteristics are not homogeneous. As described above, hatchlings enter open-ocean 10 environments for development and gradually transition back to shallow nearshore areas. There 11 is evidence that Kemp’s ridley turtles have some dependence on mangrove habitats in Florida 12 Bay and a preference for areas containing seagrass beds and sandy or muddy bottom habitats 13 (NMFS et al. 2010-TN1691). No critical habitat for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle is present near 14 the Turkey Point site (77 FR 61573) (TN2678).

15 5.2.5.3 Status and Distribution

16 Kemp’s ridley turtles are found throughout the Gulf of Mexico and along the eastern U.S. coast 17 from New England to Florida. The three main nesting beaches are located in Tamaulipas, 18 Rancho Nuevo, and Barra del Tordo, Mexico, but occasional nesting has also been documented 19 in North Carolina, South Carolina, and the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of Florida. This species has 20 experienced a historically dramatic decrease in arribada (mass nesting behavior). Nesting data 21 from Rancho Nuevo from 2000 to 2006 has documented between 1,000 and 3,600 females 22 nesting and approximately 8,000 nests. Approximately 127 nests were recorded in Texas in 23 2007.

24 5.2.5.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline

25 Factors contributing to the decline of Kemp’s ridley turtles include incidental capture in fishing 26 gear (primarily shrimp trawls), and capture in gill nets, long lines, traps and pots, and dredges. 27 Natural and anthropogenic stressors discussed above for other turtle species are also factors 28 that could contribute to population declines. Egg collection was a historical threat, but is less of 29 a factor since nesting beaches became officially protected in 1996.

30 5.2.5.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area

31 Stranding data obtained from FFWCC for Zone 25 from 1986 to 2007 (FFWCC 2012-TN4120) 32 and recent data obtained from the STSSN from 2007 to 2014 (NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067) 33 indicate that Kemp’s ridley sea turtle occurrence near the project area is very rare; only two 34 stranding events have been reported—one in 2009 and another in 2013 (Table 5-6).

5-14 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Table 5-6. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Strandings in Zone 25, 2007 to 2014 Offshore Inshore Total Year Strandings Strandings Strandings 2007 0 1 1 2008 0 1 1 2009 1 0 1 2010 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 2013 1 0 1 2014 0 1 1 Total 2 3 5 Source: NOAA SEFSC 2014-TN4067 (through November 1, 2014) http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/strandings.htm

2 5.3 Smalltooth Sawfish

3 5.3.1 Life History

4 Smalltooth Sawfish are a tropical marine and estuarine elasmobranch fish with a circumpolar 5 distribution. In the western Atlantic, sawfish have been reported from Brazil to the Caribbean, 6 and in Central America and the Gulf of Mexico. Peninsular Florida has the largest number of 7 capture records within U.S. waters, and probably contained the largest historic populations 8 (NOAA 2010-TN1724). Young sawfish are approximately 31 in. (80 cm) long at birth and grow 9 rapidly during the first 2 years of life. Adults may attain a length of over 18 ft (540 cm) at 10 maturity. Smalltooth Sawfish are considered to be “k strategists,” meaning they produce small 11 numbers of young and exhibit relatively slow growth rates that enable them to maintain small, 12 persistent populations in relatively constant environments. As a result, population growth rates 13 are relatively slow; doubling times range from about 5 to 8 years (NOAA 2010-TN1724). Thus, 14 this species may be slow to recover from significant population losses resulting from 15 anthropogenic or natural stressors.

16 5.3.2 Habitat Needs

17 Smalltooth Sawfish are found in shallow coastal waters and estuaries, with the preferred habitat 18 for this species appearing to be shallow nearshore areas with muddy or sandy bottoms at water 19 depths less than 32 ft (10 m). Water temperatures lower than 16 to 18°C and a lack of 20 appropriate coastal habitat generally define the northern limits of sawfish in the western Atlantic 21 (NOAA 2010-TN1724). Sawfish are often found in sheltered bays, and mangrove shoreline 22 areas containing mud banks are important nursery habitats for juveniles (74 FR 45353) 23 (TN271). Very small individuals <39 in. (100 cm) in length are commonly found very close to 24 shore and use red mangrove habitats to protect themselves from predators. Larger juveniles 25 (39−79 in. [100−200 cm]) in length also use mangrove habitats, but also venture into deeper 26 water. Both size ranges exhibit high site fidelity (NOAA 2010-TN1724). Larger individuals are 27 generally found in deeper water habitats, but little quantitative information is available about 28 their distributions with the exception of encounter data from observers on fishing vessels and 29 limited radio-tagging studies (NOAA 2010-TN1724). Limited data are also available to assess 30 physiological needs at different life stages and locations. As reported by NOAA (2010-TN1724), 31 a collaborative study performed by Mote Marine Laboratory and FFWCC in Charlotte Harbor’s

5-15 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Caloosahatchee River will provide insight into the physiological characteristics of the Smalltooth 2 Sawfish. The NMFS reports in its 2010 5-Year Status Review that the data gathered during the 3 study are currently being analyzed to determine when and how long sawfish spend time in the 4 Caloosahatchee River, the habitats used, their home ranges, and their salinity, temperature, 5 and dissolved oxygen level preferences. Additional studies will be required. Critical habitat for 6 Smalltooth Sawfish associated with the U.S. DPS consists of two units—the 221,459 ac 7 Charlotte Harbor Estuary Unit and the 619,013 ac coastal habitat of the Ten Thousand 8 Islands/Everglades Unit (Figure 5-4). No critical habitat for this species has been designated in 9 Biscayne Bay or Card Sound (NOAA 2010-TN179).

5-16 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2 Figure 5-4. Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat

5-17 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 5.3.3 Status and Distribution

2 This species is currently Federally endangered. The largest populations in the United States 3 are believed to be south and southwest of Florida, from Charlotte Harbor to the Dry Tortugas. 4 In the western Atlantic, this species has been reported from Brazil through the Caribbean, in the 5 Gulf of Mexico, and along the Atlantic coast of the United States. Although Smalltooth Sawfish 6 were historically found as far north as New York, the species is now only occasionally found in 7 the waters north of Florida. In its 5-year review of this species in 2010, the NMFS concluded 8 that the Smalltooth Sawfish population appears to be stable, but that long-term monitoring and 9 relative abundance field studies are needed to ensure the goals of its recovery plan are met 10 (NOAA 2010-TN1724).

11 5.3.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline

12 Primary threats to this species have been bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries, and 13 habitat loss or degradation (74 FR 45353) (TN271). Given this species’ preference for shallow 14 nearshore marine and estuarine environments, urban and agricultural development in the 15 coastal zone may adversely affect this species because of habitat loss or modification, changes 16 in nearshore salinity patterns, and increased nutrient or pollutant loading that contributes to 17 degraded water quality. Work by Seitz and Poulakis (2006-TN2673) suggests that although 18 bycatch mortality was the principal reason for historical sawfish declines, the species is also 19 affected by pollution-related injuries, including entanglement of sawfish in monofilament fishing 20 lines, elastic bands, and other forms of marine debris. Based on the habitat preferences for 21 juvenile sawfish, adverse modification of coastal mangrove communities may contribute to 22 juvenile sawfish mortality by reducing cover and increasing predation.

23 5.3.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area

24 FPL (2014-TN4058) has indicated that Smalltooth Sawfish have been observed in Biscayne Bay 25 and the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, but no individuals were collected during the Card 26 Sound study described in Section 3.2.2 of this report. This species is considered to be relatively 27 scarce along the east coast of Florida in comparison to documented occurrences on the west 28 coast of Florida, Florida Bay, and the Florida Keys (NOAA 2010-TN1724). Sawfish sighting 29 data provided by FMNH (FMNH 2014-TN3250) from approximately 1890 to 2012 shows only 18 30 sightings in the southern portion of Biscayne Bay (Figure 5-5). Of these, only one 31 (NSED_02883) occurred near Turkey Point in 1975/1976. Given the habitat preferences for this 32 species described by NOAA (2010-TN1724), sawfish, if present near the Turkey Point site, 33 would likely be juveniles using the nearshore mangrove communities to avoid predation.

5-18 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2 Figure 5-5. Sawfish Sighting Locations Near Turkey Point, 1890-2012 (FMNH 2014- 3 TN3250)

4 5.4 Nassau Grouper

5 The Nassau Grouper is a top-level predator, occurs in water depths of up to 330 ft, and occurs 6 in Biscayne Bay. Adults are often found in coral reef or rocky bottom habitats (NOAA 2009- 7 TN191). As described by Sadovy and Eklund (1999-TN200), fishing pressure in the 8 twentieth century led to the commercial extinction of the species in the U.S. Caribbean by the 9 mid-1980s; Florida populations declined from the 1950s to very low levels in the early 1990s.

5-19 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Currently, Nassau Grouper are considered overfished in Florida, and fishing for this species is 2 prohibited within U.S. waters (NOAA 2009-TN191).

3 5.4.1 Life History

4 The Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus) is a solitary, diurnal predator that is found from 5 inshore water to depths of about 100 m in waters of the south Atlantic and Caribbean, and is 6 known to occur in Biscayne Bay. Nassau Grouper reach maturity at about five years of age, 7 and may live several decades, reaching a maximum size of about 39 in. (100 cm) (Sadovy and 8 Eklund 1999-TN200). Prey items include a wide variety of fish and invertebrates. This species 9 is primarily gonochoristic (exhibiting separate sexes), and are known to congregate in very large 10 numbers at specific nearshore locations to spawn. There is also evidence that lunar cycle and 11 water temperature influence spawning cycles (NOAA 2009-TN191; Sadovy and Eklund 1999- 12 TN200). During spawning, eggs are released into the water column, and the low current speeds 13 characteristic of the chosen spawning sites limit egg dispersal. Juveniles settle into the 14 interstices of macroalgal clumps, and remain there several months before moving to other 15 microhabitats. Little is known about grouper predators, but shark attacks during spawning have 16 been documented (Sadovy and Eklund 1999-TN200).

17 5.4.2 Habitat Needs

18 Adults Nassau Grouper are often found near coral-reef systems and rocky bottoms, and near 19 caves or large overhangs at water depths to about 100 m. Juveniles are found in shallower 20 water depths in and around coral and in seagrass beds. On artificial reefs in the Virgin Islands, 21 small juveniles have been found in small burrows beneath the reefs, while larger individuals are 22 present in holes in the reef (Sadovy and Eklund 1999-TN200).

23 5.4.3 Status and Distribution

24 As described in Sadovy and Eklund (1999-TN200), this species is found in coastal waters off 25 Bermuda and Florida and through the Bahamas and Caribbean Sea to southern Brazil. 26 Although Nassau Grouper are considered abundance in the Bahamas, the Florida and 27 Caribbean populations are considered overfished by NMFS (NOAA 2009-TN191). In 2012, the 28 Nassau Grouper was designated as a Federal Species proposed for listing under ESA (77 FR 29 61559) (TN3238).

30 5.4.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline

31 Factors affecting Nassau Grouper populations in Florida include habitat loss and overfishing. 32 Because Nassau Grouper apparently selects specific areas for spawning, destruction or 33 disturbance of nearshore habitat can have a dramatic effect on this long-lived, slow maturing 34 species, and there is evidence that this has happened in Bermuda and Puerto Rico 35 (NOAA 2009-TN191). As described by Sadovy and Eklund (1999-TN200), fishing pressure in 36 the twentieth century led to the commercial extinction of the species in the U.S. Caribbean by 37 the mid-1980s; Florida populations declined from the 1950s to very low levels in the early 38 1990s. As a result of the decreases in yield, Caribbean, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico 39 Fishery Management Councils prohibited take and possession of Nassau Grouper in 1990,

5-20 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 1991, and 1996, respectively. In 1993, the State of Florida enacted similar restrictions. All 2 three fisheries management councils currently classify them as overfished.

3 5.4.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area

4 Although Nassau Grouper were not reported in the environmental studies sponsored by FPL to 5 support the proposed Unit 6 and 7 project, this species has been reported in Biscayne Bay and 6 likely occurs near the Turkey Point site.

7 5.5 Shortnose Sturgeon

8 The Federally endangered Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is commonly found in 9 rivers and estuaries along the east coast of the North America. Although this species occurs in 10 Florida waters, and was included in the list NMFS provided to FPL (Table 1-1), the southern 11 limits of its range appear to be St. Johns River (FFWCC 2010-TN160), well to the north of 12 Biscayne Bay. Because it is unlikely to occur in Biscayne Bay and has not been observed near 13 Turkey Point, potential impacts on this species are not discussed further.

14 5.6 Johnson’s Seagrass

15 Johnson’s seagrass can be identified by its smooth margins, spatulate leaves occurring in pairs, 16 and long rhizomes (subsurface stems). This seagrass is found in coarse sand and muddy 17 substrates, and has a very limited distribution. In Florida, Johnson’s seagrass has a patchy 18 distribution along the east coast of Florida extending to central Biscayne Bay, well north of 19 Turkey Point. Critical habitat is designated in northern Miami-Dade County and coastal counties 20 north to the Ft. Pierce Inlet (NOAA 2010-TN180). Because there is no evidence that Johnson’s 21 seagrass occurs in portions of Biscayne Bay or Card Sound near the Turkey Point site, potential 22 impacts on this species are not discussed further.

23 5.7 Corals

24 5.7.1 Listed Species

25 On August 27, 2014, NOAA listed 20 new coral species as threatened (NOAA Fisheries 2014- 26 TN4022; 79 FR 53851 [TN4097]). In addition to the 20 new species, Staghorn and Elkhorn 27 corals are also listed as threatened. The following 7 of the 22 threatened coral species are 28 known to occur in the Florida-Atlantic region: 29  Acropora cervicornis (Staghorn coral) 30  Acropora palmata (Elkhorn coral) 31  Mycetophyllia ferox (Cactus coral) 32  Dendrogyra cylindrus (Pillar coral) 33  Montastraea (Orbicella) annularis (Boulder star coral) 34  Montastraea (Orbicella) faveolata (Mountainous star coral) 35  Montastraea (Orbicella) franksi (Star coral).

36 Designated critical habitat for Staghorn and Elkhorn coral was established in November 2008, 37 and includes coastal areas in Florida in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe

5-21 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 counties (73 FR 72210) (TN421). Nearshore waters of Biscayne Bay near Turkey Point are not 2 within critical habitat designations for either species, and critical habitat has not yet been 3 established for the other five species listed above, given the recent listing in 2014. In its 2011 4 Status Review Report (Brainard et al. 2011-TN1517), a NOAA Biological Review Team 5 indicated that all seven species have been reported in Biscayne Bay, and noted that 6 temperature, acidification, disease, predation, land-based sources of pollution, and collection or 7 trade are major threats to all coral species. Hard-bottomed areas near Turkey Point are 8 generally considered a marginal habitat for coral, with fewer species occurring in the western 9 portion of Biscayne Bay than in the central bay, east bay, and offshore locations. This is 10 probably because of the variability in both temperature and salinity that occurs in these areas in 11 comparison to conditions present in the central and eastern bay and offshore oceanic 12 environments (Lirman et al. 2003-TN1519). Thus, the species proposed for listing or 13 reclassification are not likely to be present near Turkey Point.

5-22 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 6.0 Effects of the Proposed Action on Aquatic Species

2 The effects of the proposed action on sea turtles, Smalltooth Sawfish, and Nassau Grouper are 3 described in the following sections. Because of their scarcity or absence in Biscayne Bay near 4 the Turkey Point site, whales, Shortnose Sturgeon, Johnson’s seagrass, and listed (or proposed 5 for listing) coral species are not discussed.

6 6.1 Sea Turtles

7 6.1.1 Construction-Related Impacts

8 Construction activities that could adversely affect sea turtles include habitat loss resulting from 9 nearshore construction, release of construction-related effluents, and the effects of noise, 10 vibration, and light related to the construction of the RCW system and other nearshore building 11 and construction activities. In addition, turtles may be affected by dredging and construction 12 activities at the existing equipment barge-unloading area and turning basin, including sheet-pile 13 installation. Turtles may also be more susceptible to fatal or nonfatal collisions from increased 14 tug and barge deliveries of heavy equipment to the site. Because there are no known sea turtle 15 nests near the Turkey Point site (Figure 5-1), disturbance of nesting habitat is not expected to 16 occur. Based on the stranding data available from FFWCC and NMFS described in Section 5.0, 17 species most susceptible to construction-related impacts are the loggerhead, green, and 18 hawksbill sea turtles, all of which have been observed near the Turkey Point site. Leatherback 19 and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are rarely observed near the Turkey Point site, but those 20 individuals that occur close to the site during construction could also be affected by the 21 construction activities discussed above.

22 Based on the information provided in FPL’s ER and SCA documentation, the review team 23 determined that nearshore habitat loss associated with construction would be minimal; it would 24 occur only at the Turkey Point peninsula during RCW installation and at the equipment barge- 25 unloading area where limited dredging would be needed. Although dredging would increase 26 water turbidity, the review team expects the effects to be localized and temporary, and would 27 likely not affect turtles in the vicinity. While it is possible that construction-related activities 28 occurring near the IWF could adversely affect nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay and Biscayne 29 National Park, the hydrological connection between the IWF and Biscayne Bay is not well 30 understood. Because there is no direct discharge of construction-related effluents to Biscayne 31 Bay, it is unlikely that detectable changes in nearshore water quality would occur from 32 construction and building activities near the IWF. FPL has also committed to avoiding, 33 whenever possible, disturbance of nearshore mangrove communities in the vicinity of the RCW 34 construction area.

35 In-water or nearshore installation of sheet pile at the equipment barge-unloading area and 36 construction of the RCW system and laterals extending under Biscayne Bay could produce 37 noise and vibration that may affect sea turtles near the construction areas. The nature of sea 38 turtle hearing has been evaluated by a variety of authors (Ridgeway et al. 1969-TN3433; Martin 39 et al. 2012-TN3434; Dow Piniak et al. 2012-TN3432; DeRuiter and Doukara 2012-TN3430; 40 Bartol et al. 1999-TN3431). A variety of approaches have been used, including behavioral

6-1 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 studies and direct experiments to assess auditory evoked potential. Samuel et al. (2005- 2 TN3435) describes studies concluding that sea turtles can detect and respond to low frequency 3 sounds and vibrations, primarily in the range of 200 to 700 Hz, with peak hearing near 400 Hz. 4 Similar values were documented by Martin et al. (2012-TN3434) and Bartol et al. (1999- 5 TN3431), which used auditory evoked potential methods to demonstrate that loggerhead sea 6 turtles have low frequency hearing thresholds ranging from 100 to 1,131 Hz, with the highest 7 sensitivity between 200 and 400 Hz (110 dB re. 1Pa). Sea turtles also possess aerial hearing, 8 and can respond to stimuli between 100 and 1,000 Hz (Dow Piniak et al. 2012-TN3432).

9 As reported by Samuel et al. (2005-TN3435), underwater noise levels in the coastal zone have 10 increased dramatically in the coastal zone from many anthropogenic sources, including boats 11 and personal watercraft, nearshore construction, and increased commercial ship traffic. In a 12 study conducted at a major juvenile sea turtle foraging area in the Peconic Bay Estuary System 13 in Long Island, New York, the authors found that average noise pressure within the range of sea 14 turtle hearing reached 110dB during periods of high human activity and decreased 15 proportionally to 80 dB with decreasing human presence. The authors concluded that the noise 16 levels they measured during intense human activity would likely be sufficient to elicit changes in 17 behavior, based on other studies demonstrating sea turtle responses to high pressure air 18 pulses. As described in DeRuiter and Doukara (2012-TN3430), these types of pulses are often 19 associated with air guns used for seismic surveys, and may elicit diving responses in sea turtles 20 immediately following air gun discharges.

21 As described in (FPL 2014-TN4058), FPL models of aerial construction noise suggest the 22 highest noise levels on land would be from impact wrenches, cranes, backhoes, front-end 23 loaders, trucks, bulldozers, and the concrete batch plant. FPL estimates aerial noise levels to 24 be 85 dBA 3 ft from the source, 75 dBA 200 ft from the source, and 65 dBA 400 ft from the 25 source, which is within the range of current ambient noise levels measured by FPL (2014- 26 TN4058). Thus, sea turtles transiting near the Turkey Point peninsula would likely receive 27 minimal exposure to aerial building noise occurring in the vicinity of the Unit 6 and 7 plant area. 28 FPL also evaluated the potential for in-water noise associated with the installation of temporary 29 sheet-pile walls at the equipment barge-unloading area. Computer models were used to 30 generate contour lines corresponding to levels of sound that could elicit physical or auditory 31 injury or behavioral changes in sea turtles, marine mammals, and fish (FPL 2014-TN3717). 32 These analysis suggest that given the predicted peak noise levels at the sheet-pile installation 33 location of 220 dB peak pressure and 194 dB cumulative sound exposure, physical/auditory 34 injury to sea turtles could occur within 30 ft of the sheet-pile installation location, behavioral 35 response changes could occur within 607 ft of the site, and auditory injury could occur within 36 2,815 ft of the site. As noted in FPL 2014 (FPL 2014-TN3717), physical/auditory injury 37 thresholds established by NOAA for sea turtles are 206 dB peak, 187 dB sound exposure level 38 (SEL); behavioral response thresholds are 160 db RMS. Auditory injury estimates are based on 39 installation of 10 piles per day and a conservative (protective) assumption related to how noise 40 would propagate along the walls of the entrance channel. FPL also notes that sheet-pile 41 installation would occur during a 2-week period (FPL 2014-TN3717).

42 Potential effects on RCW lateral installation using microtunneling technology were also 43 assessed in FPL (2014-TN3717). Based on the analyses presented in the report, installation of

6-2 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 RCW laterals using microtunneling technology would generate a maximum of 120 dB re 1Pa at 2 1 m from the drill head, which would be located 25 to 40 ft below the bottom of Biscayne Bay. It 3 is assumed the limestone and bottom sediments would dampen the sound as it moves upward. 4 These estimated sound emissions are below thresholds developed by NOAA that are expected 5 to cause auditory injury (206 dB peak, 187 dB SEL) or behavioral changes in sea turtles (160 6 dB RMS) (FPL 2014-TN3717). Thus, the review team concludes impacts on sea turtles would 7 likely be minor because building-related disturbance would be temporary and localized and 8 because individuals can avoid the area.

9 Although the above analyses suggest a potential for harm to sea turtles during sheet-pile 10 installation, FPL considers the risk to be minimal, as sea turtles are not commonly found in the 11 entrance channel or equipment barge-unloading area, and construction duration is expected to 12 be only two weeks. It is also possible that sea turtles in the vicinity would avoid this area during 13 active sheet-pile installation and dredging because of noise and increased turbidity. Impacts to 14 sea turtles are expected to be further reduced if the conditions for in-water building required by 15 NMFS are followed (NMFS 2006-TN3451). NMFS requirements for in-water work includes work 16 only during daylight hours, worker training on safe practices and the implications of harming a 17 sea turtle, the use of siltation barriers that will not entangle turtles, “no-wake/idle” speeds in 18 construction areas, and cessation of operations if sea turtles are observed within 50 yd of active 19 construction/dredging operations or vessel movement. NMFS also requires immediate reporting 20 of a collision with a sea turtle.

21 As described in the ER (FPL 2014-TN4058), the existing barge-turning basin currently receives 22 between five and seven barge shipments of fuel oil per week throughout the year. This will 23 likely decrease based on FPL’s decision to operate the existing Units 1 and 2 in synchronous 24 condenser mode (FPL 2013-TN2630). During the proposed 6 year construction period for Units 25 6 and 7, FPL estimates 80 barge trips per unit would be necessary to support construction 26 activities. Although the increased barge and tug traffic could pose a hazard to sea turtles, work 27 by Bernhart (NMFS 2009-TN1475) suggests that, in general, collision risk for sea turtles 28 venturing near large coastal construction projects would be minimal. To further reduce collision 29 risk for this species, FPL has developed a Barge Delivery Plan (FPL 2009-TN169; FPL 2012- 30 TN2768) that describes how operations would be monitored to ensure the risks of collisions are 31 reduced for manatee. Implementation of the Barge Delivery Plan also is also expected to be 32 protective of sea turtles, thereby reducing the potential for construction-related impacts.

33 Based on the above assessment, the review team concludes that construction of the proposed 34 Units 6 and 7 may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, the five sea turtle species that may 35 be present in Biscayne Bay during construction activities. Although increases in anthropogenic 36 noise associated with construction activities has the potential to cause physical/auditory injury or 37 evoke changes sea turtle behavior, these effects are localized and would occur for 38 approximately two weeks. The review team presumes that any sea turtles in the vicinity of 39 construction activities would temporarily leave the area. Increased barge and tug traffic 40 increases the likelihood for potential for collisions near the entrance channel to the equipment 41 barge-unloading facility. Potential collisions between sea turtles and tug-barge operations near 42 the barge equipment unloading area may be mitigated by adherence to the Barge Delivery Plan 43 described above; mitigation of light, noise, and vibration related to general construction 44 activities, installation of sheet piling, and the creation of the RCW system may warrant additional

6-3 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 studies or cessation of activities at certain times of the year based on guidance provided by 2 NMFS.

3 6.1.2 Operational Impacts

4 The use of reclaimed water from MDSWD to operate the proposed Unit 6 and 7 closed-cycle 5 cooling system, as well as the disposal of cooling-tower blowdown into deep-aquifer injection 6 wells, would eliminate the need for conventional intake and discharge systems. Thus, there 7 would be no potential for sea turtle impingement or entrapment, or the risk of heat or cold shock 8 related to the operation of proposed Units 6 and 7. Impingement or entrapment during the RCW 9 cooling system option would be highly unlikely because RCW laterals are 25 to 40 ft beneath 10 Biscayne Bay, and even if a significant fracture of the overlying limestone occurred, the effects 11 would be localized and unlikely to adversely affect sea turtles transiting the area. There is a 12 possibility, however, that long-term use of reclaimed wastewater could result in adverse effects 13 to nearshore aquatic resources (including sea turtles) from cooling-tower deposition of 14 contaminants and constituents not removed prior to its use in the cooling system.

15 As described in Section 4.2.1, to evaluate the potential for adverse effects of cooling-tower 16 deposition, the review team performed a screening-level assessment that compared the 17 expected concentrations of priority pollutants and CECs in reclaimed wastewater to be used in 18 cooling the proposed Units 6 and 7 to State of Florida water-quality criteria or appropriate 19 toxicological data, if numerical criteria were unavailable. Based on the fate and effects 20 modeling results discussed in Section 5.2 of the NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 and summarized in 21 Table 6-1, contaminant concentrations in the IWF—the waterbody with the highest estimated 22 depositional rate—would be much lower than environmental criteria or benchmarks for sensitive 23 fish or invertebrate species. Because nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay would receive a much 24 lower depositional rate, any chemicals present would be rapidly diluted and unlikely to adversely 25 affect the aquatic species living near Turkey Point site. Thus, cooling-tower deposition during 26 the use of reclaimed water would be unlikely to adversely affect sea turtles or their prey. Salt 27 deposition at nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay related to RCW operation is also expected to be 28 minimal, and would not result in a detectable increase in salinity (Section 5.2.1.1. and Table 5-1 29 in the NRC EIS, NUREG-2176).

30 As described in Section 4.2.2 of this report and Section 5.2 and Appendix G of the NRC EIS, 31 NUREG-2176 the review team’s examination of the time series indicated that variations in 32 salinity from continuous pumping were mostly within ±1 psu, with only transient increases to 33 near 2 psu (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Appendix G Figure 9). When the review team examined 34 the spatial distribution results at the time when salinity time-series differences calculated an 35 increase (10/3/2003), the increase (which was less than +2 psu) was predicted to occur in a 36 relatively small area north of Turkey Point (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Appendix, Figure 10). 37 When the review team examined the spatial distribution results at the time when salinity time- 38 series differences calculated a decrease (10/25/2004), the decrease (which was greater than -2 39 psu) was also predicted to occur in a relatively small area north of Turkey Point (NRC EIS, 40 NUREG-2176 Appendix F, Figure 11). These results show that the variation in salinity would 41 be minimal with continuous radial collector well pumping. The review team noted that the actual 42 duration of pumping would not be continuous because the FDEP permit conditions require that 43 pumping be limited to 60 days or less per year (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). A shorter

6-4 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 duration would allow time for the groundwater system to recover following radial collector well 2 pumping, and limit the entrainment of saltwater from Biscayne Bay. Therefore, the effect on 3 Biscayne Bay salinity from any permitted pumping would be much reduced from the already 4 minimal salinity change predicted with the USGS modeling analyses.

5 Table 6-1. Comparison of Estimated Concentrations of Chemicals in the Cooling Canal 6 System from Cooling-Tower Deposition During Reclaimed Water Use to 7 Analytical Method Detection Limits and Toxicological Criteria or Benchmarks

Maximum Incremental Increases of Method Environmental Concentration Detection Criteria or in Cooling Limit Benchmark Endpoint Chemical Name Description Canals (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) and Species 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Insect repellant 0.00070 0.1(a) 0.7 EC50(b) Immobilization Daphnia magna 3 beta-coprostanol Human digestion 0.0011 0.52(a) 0.04 Unspecified marker 4-Nonylphenol Detergent 0.0022 0.64(a) 0.01 LOEC(c) metabolite Gene expression Danio rerio Acetyl-hexamethyl- Musk compound 0.0022 0.08(a) 7.2 EC10(d) tetrahydro-naphthalene Development (AHTN) Acartia tonsa Hexahydrohexamethyl- Musk compound 0.00027 0.12(a) 11.0 NOEC(e) cyclopentabenzopyran Growth, survival (HHCB) Daphnia magna Phenanthrene Polycyclic 0.00032 0.08(a) 0.125 NOEC aromatic Growth compound Daphnia magna Warfarin Pharmaceutical 0.000064 0.012(f) 0.288 EC50 Immobilization Daphnia magna 17 beta-estradiol (E2) Hormone 0.000019 2(f) 0.0004 NOEC Morphology Oryzias latipes Triclosan Antibiotic 0.060 Unknown 0.2 NOEC Growth Pseudokirch-neriella subcapitata Copper Heavy metal 0.0052 6.0(a) 4.8 EPA Aquatic Life Criteria, Saltwater (a) Lietz and Meyer 2006-TN1005. (b) EC50 = median effective concentration required to induce a 50 percent effect (c) LOEC = lowest observed effect concentration (d) EC10: median effective concentration required to induce a 10 percent effect (e) NOEC = no observed effects concentration (f) Analytical reporting limit

8 Based on the above assessment, the review team concludes that the operation of the proposed 9 Units 6 and 7 are unlikely to affect sea turtles. No surface-water discharges from the cooling 10 system will occur into Biscayne Bay, and cooling-tower deposition will not result in detectible 11 levels of contaminants or constituents into nearshore locations of Biscayne Bay. Although 12 continuous operation of the RCW system may result in detectible increases (or decreases) in 13 nearshore salinity, the review team concludes that these changes would be localized and

6-5 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 temporary. Thus, operation of the proposed Units 6 and 7 would have no effect on sea turtles 2 visiting Biscayne Bay.

3 6.2 Smalltooth Sawfish

4 6.2.1 Construction-Related Impacts

5 As described above for sea turtles, Smalltooth Sawfish may be adversely affected by nearshore 6 habitat loss resulting from RCW construction, release of construction-related effluents, and the 7 effects of noise, vibration, and light related to the construction of the RCW system and other 8 nearshore structures. In addition, sawfish occurring near the equipment barge-unloading area 9 may be adversely affected by short-term elevations in turbidity during dredging, and noise 10 associated with sheet-pile installation. Although construction-related effluents will be directed to 11 the IWF, other activities have the potential to adversely affect this species, including dredging 12 and sheet-pile installation at the equipment barge-unloading area, construction noise and light 13 at the Unit 6 and 7 site, and noise, light, and vibration associated with RCW installation. Based 14 on the life history and habitat needs described by NOAA (2010-TN1724), and distribution data 15 provided by FMNH (2014-TN3250), the review team concludes that Smalltooth Sawfish present 16 in shallow-water nearshore locations near Turkey Point would probably be juveniles seeking 17 shelter and protection in mangroves. As noted above, because there is no direct discharge of 18 construction-related effluents into Biscayne Bay, detectible changes to nearshore water quality 19 from construction near the IWF are unlikely.

20 As noted above, FPL provided an assessment of likely effects on Smalltooth Sawfish from noise 21 related to sheet-pile installation at the equipment barge-unloading area, as well as construction 22 and building activities on the Turkey Point Unit 6 and 7 site and Turkey Point peninsula 23 (FPL 2014-TN3717). This study concluded that although there was a potential for physical and 24 auditory injury and behavioral changes to sawfish from sheet-pile installation at the equipment 25 barge-unloading area, adverse effects related to other building activities was unlikely. FPL 26 noted the sheet-pile installation would occur over a 2-week period, and expected that sawfish, if 27 present near the construction area, would relocate to other nearshore areas in Biscayne Bay 28 during active construction. Noise modeling analysis conducted by FPL contractors (FPL 2014- 29 TN3717) indicated that installation of RCW laterals using microtunneling technology would 30 generate a maximum of 120 dB re. 1Pa at 1 m from the drill head, which would be located 25 31 to 40 ft below the bottom of Biscayne Bay, and would be dampened by the overlying limestone 32 and bottom sediments. These sound emissions are below thresholds expected to cause 33 auditory injury or behavioral responses in fish. Accordingly, based on the information discussed 34 above, the review team concludes impacts on Smalltooth Sawfish would likely be minor 35 because building-related disturbance would be temporary and localized and potentially affected 36 fish would likely avoid the area. The review team also assumes in-water building guidance for 37 the sawfish developed by NMFS (2006-TN3451) would be followed. Based on the above 38 assessment, the review team concludes that building and construction activities associated with 39 the proposed Units 6 and 7 may affect, but would likely not adversely affect, Smalltooth Sawfish.

6-6 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 6.2.2 Operational Impacts

2 Given the proposed operation of the Units 6 and 7 cooling system, the review team expects 3 operational effects on the Smalltooth Sawfish to be minimal. As described above, even if this 4 species was present in the mangrove or mud bank habitats near Turkey Point, the potential for 5 adverse effects related to cooling-tower drift would be minimal because any contaminants or 6 salt entering nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay would be rapidly diluted. While extended use of 7 the RCW system has the potential to increase nearshore salinity values, the effects would be 8 episodic and localized. Because FPL has proposed that RCW use would be limited to 60 days 9 per year (FPL 2012-TN2688), adverse effects are unlikely. Thus, the review team concludes 10 that operation of the proposed Units 6 and 7 would have no effect on this species.

11 6.3 Nassau Grouper

12 6.3.1 Construction-Related Impacts

13 Because Nassau Grouper are likely to occur at nearshore locations near Turkey Point, the 14 construction-related activities likely to affect the grouper would include modification of the 15 equipment barge-unloading area and associated dredging, as well as noise, light, and vibration 16 associated with construction activities at the Units 6 and 7 site and RCW installation at Turkey 17 Point. As noted above, construction activities near the IWF are unlikely to affect nearshore 18 water quality. Effects on this species from aerial noise emissions related to building and 19 construction at the Unit 6 and 7 and RCW site, in-water noise emissions from sheet-pile 20 installation at the equipment barge-unloading area, and microtunneling related to RCW 21 installation would likely be similar to those described above for Smalltooth Sawfish. Although 22 construction activities could result in physical trauma or behavioral changes, Nassau Grouper, if 23 present in the construction areas, would likely relocate to more suitable areas in Biscayne Bay 24 during the 2-week construction process. Thus, the review team concludes that construction- 25 related activities at Turkey Point may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect Nassau 26 Grouper.

27 6.3.2 Operational Impacts

28 As described above for sea turtles and Smalltooth Sawfish, the review team concludes that the 29 operation of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 is unlikely to adversely affect Nassau 30 Grouper, given the lack of conventional surface-water intake and discharge structures, and the 31 determination that cooling-tower deposition of contaminants and constituents to nearshore 32 areas of Biscayne Bay would likely be undetectable. Based on this assessment, the review 33 team concludes that the operation of the proposed Units 6 and 7 would have no effect on 34 Nassau Grouper.

6-7

Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 7.0 Cumulative Effects

2 Cumulative effects on listed species under the jurisdiction of NMFS include the influence of 3 existing facilities (e.g., existing Turkey Point or related units), ongoing or planned restoration 4 efforts, increased population growth and development, and sea-level rise and climate change, 5 as described below.

6 7.1.1 Existing Turkey Point Units

7 The existing Turkey Point site described in Section 3.0 encompasses 9,400 ac and currently 8 contains five power-generating plants. Units 1 and 2 are natural-gas/oil steam electrical 9 generating units that each produce 400 MW(e). Unit 1 has been in service since 1967 and 10 Unit 2 has been in service since 1968. Unit 2 was recently converted to operate in synchronous 11 condenser mode to provide voltage stability for the transmission system in southeastern Florida. 12 In this mode, it no longer generates power using a steam cycle or provides a significant thermal 13 discharge to the IWF. FPL also expects to convert Unit 1 to a similar purpose starting in 2016 14 (FPL 2013-TN2630). Two pressurized water reactors, producing a combined 1632 MW(e), and 15 their associated facilities (Units 3 and 4) are also located on the site. Unit 3 has been in service 16 since 1972 and Unit 4 has been in service since 1973. Both units received operating license 17 renewals, which will allow Unit 3 to operate until 2032 and Unit 4 to operate until 2033 18 (NRC 2012-TN1298; NRC 2012-TN1299). Unit 5 is a natural-gas combined-cycle unit that 19 began operating in 2007 and is rated to produce 1,150 MW(e). These existing units occupy 20 approximately 195 ac. Units 1 through 4 on the Turkey Point site rely on a system of canals that 21 occupy approximately 5,900 ac on the Turkey Point site to provide cooling water. The canals 22 are used as a closed-loop cooling system, and they are permitted as an IWF. Mechanical draft 23 cooling towers are used to dissipate heat from Unit 5. Water from the Upper Floridan aquifer is 24 withdrawn to provide makeup water to Unit 5. Blowdown from the cooling towers is sent to the 25 cooling canals of the IWF (FPL 2014-TN4058).

26 As noted in Section 6.0, the hydrological connection between the IWF and Biscayne Bay is not 27 well understood, but there is no direct surface discharge from the IWF into nearshore areas of 28 Biscayne Bay. Because the existing Units 1−5 have limited connection to Biscayne Bay and 29 surrounding waterbodies, the cumulative effects of their operation will likely be confined to 30 species inhabiting the IWF. The presence of the existing units may also warrant additional 31 protection from sea-level rise, as discussed below, that could further affect existing hydrology 32 and indirectly affect listed aquatic T&E species through food web alterations.

33 7.1.2 Cutler Units 5 and 6

34 Cutler Units 5 and 6 are located approximately 14 mi north of the Turkey Point site. These 35 fossil-fuel units had a combined rated output of 232 MW and a design flow of 297 Mgd to 36 support once-through cooling. Cooling water was obtained from and discharged to Biscayne 37 Bay under the State of Florida National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit 38 FL0001481 (FDEP 2005-TN1148). These units were retired in the fourth quarter of 2012 39 (FPL 2013-TN2630). Thus, the contribution of Cutler Units 5 and 6 to cumulative effects is 40 negligible.

7-1 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 7.1.3 Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition Restoration

2 The Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition projects are located south and west of 3 the Turkey Point site, and represent a collaborative effort by the Environmentally Endangered 4 Lands Program of Miami-Dade County and the Save Our Rivers Program of the South Florida 5 Water Management District (SFWMD). The restoration area encompasses about 34,000 ac of 6 freshwater and coastal wetlands, and it serves as a key area for freshwater flow to Florida Bay, 7 Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, and Barnes Sound (SFWMD 2005-TN217). Programmatic goals 8 include improving the overall condition of wetlands through the removal of exotic plants, 9 improving access control to sensitive areas, implementing a prescribed fire program, and 10 restoring wetland function through removal of physical barriers to overland flow. Although many 11 of the restoration actions do not specifically involve aquatic resources, the overall program will 12 benefit aquatic species by restoring historic flow patterns into Biscayne Bay and Card Sound, 13 and limiting future impacts through programmatic planning. If successful, these projects could 14 result in ecosystem connection and function that more closely resembles what was present 15 before industrialization and urbanization occurred in South Florida. Unfortunately, noticeable 16 changes in aquatic environments may not be evident for many years after project 17 implementation.

18 7.1.4 Biscayne National Park Fishery Management Plan

19 In May 2014, the NPS announced the availability of the Final EIS for Biscayne National Park’s 20 Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to protect and restore Biscayne National Park’s existing 21 fisheries (NPS 2014-N4072). The plan is intended to ensure that fishing activities are conducted 22 in a sustainable manner and to comply with the NPS mandate to provide inspiration, education, 23 and enjoyment to future generations. The plan includes the following five alternatives related to 24 future conditions within Biscayne National Park: 25 1. Maintain status quo. This no-action alternative serves as a basis of comparison with the 26 other alternatives. No regulatory changes would be triggered by the establishment of the 27 FMP. 28 2. Maintain at or above currently levels. This alternative seeks to maintain Biscayne National 29 Park's fisheries resources at or above currently existing levels. As needed, management 30 actions would be implemented (in conjunction with the FFWCC) and could include moderate 31 increases in minimum harvest sizes, moderate decreases in bag limits, and seasonal and/or 32 spatial closures. 33 3. Improve conditions over current levels. This alternative aims to increase the abundance and 34 average size of fishery-targeted species within the Park by at least 10 percent over existing 35 conditions. A range of management actions to achieve the desired resource status would 36 be considered, and include moderate increases in minimum harvest sizes, moderate 37 decreases in bag limits, and seasonal and/or spatial closures. Under this alternative, the 38 lobster mini-season would be eliminated in the Park and regulations would be enacted to 39 prohibit the use of an air supply or gear with a trigger mechanism while spearfishing. 40 Numbers of commercial fishers would remain at current levels or decrease over time, and 41 fishing-related habitat impacts would be reduced.

7-2 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 4. Rebuild and conserve park fishery resources (selected alternative). This alternative is the 2 NPS's preferred alternative and proposes to increase the abundance and average size of 3 fishery-targeted species within the Park by at least 20 percent over existing conditions, as 4 well as reduce fishing-related habitat impacts. Possible management actions to achieve 5 substantial improvement of fisheries resources could include considerable increases in 6 minimum size limits, designation of slot limits, substantial decreases in bag limits, and 7 seasonal and/or spatial closures. Under Alternative 4, the lobster mini-season would be 8 eliminated in the Park and regulations would be enacted to prohibit the use of an air supply 9 or gear with a trigger mechanism while spearfishing. Numbers of commercial fishers would 10 decrease over time via establishment of a non-transferable permit system. 11 5. Restore park fishery resources. This alternative seeks to return the sizes and abundance of 12 targeted species within 20 percent of their estimated, historic (pre-exploitation) levels and to 13 prevent further decline in fishing-related habitat impacts. Possible management actions to 14 achieve the desired conditions would be enacted in conjunction with the FFWCC and could 15 include substantial increases in minimum size limits, designation of slot limits, substantial 16 decreases in bag limits, seasonal and/or spatial closures, prohibition of extractive fishing (i.e. 17 only allowing catch-and-release fishing), and a temporary moratorium on all fishing activity 18 within the Park. Under this alternative, the lobster mini-season would be eliminated in the 19 Park and regulations would be enacted to prohibit spearfishing within the Park. Numbers of 20 commercial fishers would decrease over time via establishment of a non-transferable permit 21 system.

22 Details of the plan are provided by NPS (NPS 2014-TN4073). The cumulative effect of this 23 proposed FMP on Biscayne Bay is unknown, but the review team expects it will provide a net 24 ecological benefit to Biscayne Bay, and it may offset some of the negative impacts from other 25 past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions likely to occur in the area of interest.

26 7.1.5 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program

27 The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP) was approved under the Water 28 Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 USC 2201 et seq.) (TN1037), and is intended to 29 provide a framework for restoration, protection, and preservation of water resources in central 30 and southern Florida. The program encompasses 16 counties and more than 180,000 mi2, and 31 it is expected to take more than 30 years to complete at a cost of nearly $12 billion in 2007 32 dollars. The primary goals of CERP are to capture freshwater that now flows into nearshore 33 coastal areas as point sources, and redirect it to promote more natural hydrologic conditions 34 and enhance environmental connectivity (CERP 2012-TN1035).

35 One of the key CERP projects that will affect aquatic resources in the vicinity of the Turkey Point 36 site is the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 Project (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). 37 The lead agency for this project is the USACE Jacksonville District; the SFWMD serves as the 38 non-Federal cost-sharing partner. The overall goal of the project is to rehydrate coastal 39 wetlands and reduce point-source discharge of freshwater into Biscayne Bay by redirecting the 40 water to spreaders in coastal wetlands that are currently bypassed by the canal systems. This 41 is intended to improve nearshore substrate and fish habitats that are affected by high salinity 42 during the dry season, and to reduce excessive freshwater outflow during the rainy season. As

7-3 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 designed, the project will divert an average of 59 percent of the freshwater discharged into 2 Biscayne Bay from coastal structures into freshwater and saltwater wetlands 3 (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). If this program meets its intended goals, it should result in 4 detectable improvements in nearshore habitats and reductions in salinity in Biscayne Bay. 5 These actions could provide both direct and indirect benefits to aquatic T&E species near the 6 Turkey Point site related to an overall improvement in habitat quality and quantity.

7 As noted by the National Research Council (2008-TN666), CERP is an extremely complex, 8 long-term restoration program, with 68 separate subprojects that require sophisticated scientific 9 knowledge of ecosystem function and dynamics, and the development of new approaches and 10 technologies to support water management. In its second biennial review of CERP progress, 11 the Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (National 12 Research Council 2008-TN666) concluded CERP was “…bogged down in budgeting, planning, 13 and procedural matters and is making only scant progress toward achieving restoration goals.” 14 The Committee went on to state that the ecosystems CERP is intended to save remain in peril, 15 while rising construction costs and ongoing population growth and development make 16 restoration challenges more difficult (National Research Council 2008-TN666). Unfortunately, in 17 its third biennial review, the National Research Council concluded “Natural system restoration 18 progress from the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) remains slow. This 19 committee reaffirmed its predecessor’s conclusions (National Research Council 2008-TN666) 20 that continued declines in some aspects of the ecosystem coupled with environmental and 21 societal changes make accelerated progress in Everglades restoration even more important" 22 (National Research Council 2010-TN1036). In the fourth biennial review, the National Research 23 Council was slightly more hopeful, noting that eight CERP projects are now under construction. 24 Despite this success, the National Research Council remained concerned about the slow pace 25 of projects intended to restore the hydrology of the historical Everglades ecosystem, and the 26 effects of recent Federal budget decisions on future appropriations(National Research 27 Council 2012-TN2685). Thus, it is difficult to predict whether CERP-related restoration actions, 28 or those funded by other sources, will meet their intended goals and result in a detectable 29 beneficial change to affected aquatic resources in South Florida.

30 7.1.6 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

31 Although the northern boundaries of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) are 32 south of Turkey Point, actions taken to improve water quality and habitat may positively 33 influence Card Sound and Biscayne Bay. In 2011, NOAA released a report on the condition of 34 the FKNMS that summarized the state of the resources with respect to water, habitat, living 35 resources, and maritime archaeological resources (NOAA 2011-TN1847). The conclusions 36 related to water suggested that although some management actions have reduced water-quality 37 impacts, conditions were either declining or had not appreciably changed. A similar conclusion 38 was reached for metrics associated with habitat and living resources. In response to this report, 39 NOAA’s FKNMS has indicated it will continue implementation of its water-quality protection 40 program in conjunction with EPA and FDEP, reduce point- and nonpoint-source pollution, and 41 will work collaboratively with State and Federal agencies to provide enforcement of existing 42 laws. FKNMS will also continue to implement its marine zoning and permitting program to 43 reduce habitat loss and destruction within sanctuary boundaries. These actions are expected to

7-4 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 benefit both FKNMS and surrounding waterbodies, including open-ocean environments 2 adjacent to the sanctuary and Card Sound and Biscayne Bay to the north.

3 7.1.7 Population Growth and Coastal Development

4 Increased population growth and coastal development have been cited as serious concerns by 5 many Federal and State resource agencies, nongovernmental groups, and researchers studying 6 South Florida ecosystems. For instance, in its 2008 review of CERP, the National Research 7 Council noted that an expanding population in South Florida would create competition with 8 ecosystem restoration for finite resources, and that planned restoration efforts could be in 9 conflict with agriculture when farmed areas interrupt intended water flow for rehydration and 10 restoration (National Research Council 2008-TN666). Environmental effects related to historical 11 and current population growth have also been incorporated into ecosystem conceptual models 12 for South Florida (Ogden et al. 2005-TN196; Ogden et al. 2005-TN197) and are identified as a 13 major threat to Biscayne National Park (Robles et al. 2005-TN198). A similar concern was 14 stated in the Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and EIS for the Biscayne Bay 15 Coastal Wetland Phase 1 Project (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038), which indicated that without 16 the Phase 1 project, further development and creation of impervious surfaces would lead to 17 increased runoff and larger point-source freshwater discharges into nearshore areas. 18 USACE/SFWMD also indicated that if the plan was not implemented, much of the study area for 19 the project would likely be developed, resulting in increased stormwater runoff and pollution, 20 and additional use of chemicals to reduce mosquito populations and support agricultural 21 development (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). Increased population and growth in nearshore 22 areas of South Florida may also necessitate the need for shoreline armoring or the creation of 23 barrier systems in response to sea-level rise and climate change, as discussed below. These 24 actions could affect sea turtle nesting beaches to the north of Biscayne Bay (Figure 5-1), and 25 indirectly influence other aquatic T&E species by reducing the quality and quantity of aquatic 26 habitat.

27 7.1.8 Climate Change

28 Climate change in South Florida is projected to alter seasonal precipitation and temperature 29 regimes, increase storm frequency and intensity, and increase sea level. Temperatures in 30 South Florida are expected to increase, while spring and summer rainfall is projected to 31 decrease (GCRP 2009-TN18). The intensity of Atlantic hurricanes is also projected to increase. 32 Sea levels are projected to rise (Cela et al. 2010-TN1034; USACE 2009-TN1359). Increased 33 temperatures coupled with decreased rainfall during spring and summer could stress existing 34 plant communities and lead to substantial alterations of plant cover. Fire frequency could also 35 increase with increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, resulting in a greater 36 prevalence of early successional habitats in inland settings. Coastal mangrove wetlands within, 37 and adjacent to, the Turkey Point site are similar to mangrove wetlands throughout much of 38 South Florida in that they occur at relatively low elevations and would thus be susceptible to 39 changes in climate and sea level. The quality, quantity, and spatial distribution of low-elevation 40 coastal wetlands would likely change as a result of saltwater intrusion, erosion, and accretion 41 caused by predicted sea-level rise (Titus et al. 2009-TN1360). Some coastal wetlands may be 42 converted to open water, while other wetland types may be displaced inland. Climate change 43 could affect precipitation patterns and alter hydrological flow, connectivity, and timing. Elevated

7-5 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 sea levels may threaten existing aquatic and wetland environments and coastal infrastructure 2 and affect the success of ongoing or planned restoration activities. The potential for climate 3 change to influence ongoing or future restoration success is of particular relevance to aquatic 4 resources present at or near Turkey Point site, because long-term changes in rainfall patterns or 5 saltwater intrusion into estuarine areas could negate efforts to re-establish historical flow and 6 salinity conditions. For example, in an analysis of the effects of climate-induced sea-level rise 7 on the success of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 Project, the USACE and 8 SFWMD estimated that within a 20 year time frame after project construction was completed in 9 2012, approximately 8 percent of the project ecosystem benefits were likely to be at risk from 10 sea-level rise. At the end of 50 years, expected benefits would be diminished by 41 percent, as 11 determined by comparing flood-prediction maps for a 2 ft sea-level rise to the benefitted area 12 projections in the plan (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). Thus, salinity intrusion related to sea- 13 level rise both confounds ecological restoration efforts designed to reduce nearshore salinities 14 and affirms the need for such actions to ensure further degradation does not occur.

15 A second important stressor on the aquatic resources at or near the Turkey Point site from 16 climate change could be the need for additional shoreline armoring or infrastructure to protect 17 cities, urban areas, roads, bridges, and agricultural land from rising sea levels. For instance, in 18 Miami-Dade County, 4,358 km2 of land are at elevations of 5 m or less, and 3,500 km2 are at 19 elevations of 2 m or less above the spring high-water level (Cela et al. 2010-TN1034). Because 20 coastal lands have a high property value and support tourist, recreational, and commercial 21 enterprises, property owners and local governments can be expected to demand protection of 22 many of these coastal areas from erosion, inundation, infrastructure damage, and flooding. 23 Areas in Miami-Dade County where shore protection is “reasonably likely” or “almost certain” 24 include the existing IWF at the Turkey Point site and nearshore areas extending north toward 25 Miami (Cela et al. 2010-TN1034). The armoring and protection actions in these areas, including 26 the IWF, could contribute to habitat fragmentation or interfere with restoration activities designed 27 to restore historical hydrological flow and ecological connections. Coupled with increased 28 population and urbanization, protection activities could become a permanent part of the coastal 29 landscape, and dramatically influence the future of aquatic resources in South Florida. As 30 discussed above, the cumulative effects of these actions cannot be predicted until a 31 comprehensive plan for climate change adaptation is developed by the State of Florida.

32 7.1.9 Cumulative Effects Summary

33 Clearly, many factors will contribute to the cumulative ecological effects experienced by 34 threatened or endangered aquatic species occurring at or near the Turkey Point site over the 35 next 40 years. Although the effects of construction and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 36 may contribute to the overall cumulative impacts experienced by aquatic food webs near the 37 Turkey Point site, the largest source of uncertainty related to future conditions appears to be the 38 success or failure of existing and pending restoration activities that have a nexus to Biscayne 39 Bay, the magnitude of the hydrological alterations that could result from changes in rainfall 40 patterns associated with climate change, and the response of State and Federal agencies to a 41 sea-level rise that may threaten coastal population centers or critical infrastructures. Although 42 the operation of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 could contribute to cumulative effects 43 experienced by listed species or the food webs they depend on, it is likely the impacts of 44 construction and operation of these units would be inconsequential compared to (1) the success

7-6 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 (or failure) of existing or planned restoration activities that would affect nearshore areas of 2 Biscayne Bay near Turkey Point, (2) the dramatic changes and resulting variability that could 3 occur from climate-induced alterations to nearshore hydrology, (3) the sea-level rise that further 4 increases nearshore salinity or prompts protection actions that affect hydrological and ecological 5 connectivity, and (4) the effect of continued urbanization in South Florida. Given the extent of 6 lowland areas in coastal Florida, it is also likely that efforts designed to protect people and 7 infrastructure from coastal flooding will create a new set of environmental stressors that could 8 dramatically alter ecological connectivity and persistence. Cumulative effects related to current 9 or planned restoration activities will depend on the success (or failure) of the programs, and are 10 unresolved. Cumulative effects related to climate change and sea-level rise will depend on the 11 nature and extent of the climatological changes that occur, and the Federal, State, and local 12 response to predicted sea-level rise. Climate change and sea-level rise will likely exert the most 13 influence on listed species because of their potential to further alter existing conditions, 14 exacerbate the existing hydrological alterations that already are present in the area, or result in 15 the creation of seawalls, berms, or other infrastructure that adversely affect nearshore 16 ecosystems. However, the review team concludes that the contribution to cumulative impacts 17 from authorized NRC activities for proposed Units 6 and 7, while noticeable at some locations, 18 and for some listed species, would likely have little to no effect in comparison to the other 19 environmental stressors that will be present, including the effects of climate change.

7-7

Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 8.0 Determination

2 Based on the above assessment of potential impacts from construction and operation of the 3 proposed Units 6 and 7, the review team concludes that construction and operation will not 4 affect the six listed whale species, Shortnose Sturgeon, Elkhorn and Staghorn coral, and 5 Johnson’s seagrass, as these species do not occur or are not commonly found at nearshore 6 areas of Biscayne Bay near the Turkey Point facility (Table 8-1). Construction of the proposed 7 units may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the five listed sea turtles that have been 8 reported near the Turkey Point facility, and two fish species that could occur in the area, the 9 endangered Smalltooth Sawfish and the Nassau Grouper, a fish species proposed for listing by 10 NMFS.

11 For the reasons described above, the review team determined that construction and dredging at 12 the equipment barge-unloading area may result in temporary increases in turbidity, and that 13 noise associated with the installation of sheet piling barriers could cause listed species to avoid 14 this area. In addition, tug and barge traffic associated with the construction of Units 6 and 7 15 may result in fatal or nonfatal collisions with sea turtles, although this is highly unlikely. The 16 review team also determined that noise, vibration, and construction-related light could disturb 17 listed fish and sea turtles in nearshore areas adjacent to both the Unit 6 and 7 reactor area and 18 the Turkey Point peninsula where RCW installation will occur. These effects would likely be 19 minor because building-related disturbance would be temporary and localized and because 20 individuals can avoid the area. Thus, the review team concludes construction activities may 21 affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect listed turtle and fish species in the vicinity (Table 8-1) 22 of the site. Based on the proposed operation of Units 6 and 7 as described in ER Revision 6 23 (FPL 2014-TN4058), the review team concludes that no adverse operational effects are likely 24 for all species listed in Table 8-1. The proposed cooling system will not employ conventional 25 surface-water intake or discharge structures, and cooling-tower blowdown water will be 26 discharged into a deep-aquifer system. Fate and transport modeling suggests that cooling- 27 tower deposition using either reclaimed wastewater or Biscayne Bay seawater will be 28 undetectable in nearshore waters of Biscayne Bay near the Turkey Point facility. 29

8-1 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Table 8-1. Expected Impacts on Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 2 from Construction and Operation of the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7

Listed Species Scientific Name Status Determination Mammals Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered No effect Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered No effect Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered No effect North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered No effect Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered No effect Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered No effect Reptiles Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened May affect, not likely to adversely affect Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect Fish Smalltooth Sawfish Pristis pectinata Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect Nassau Grouper Epinephelus striatus Proposed for listing May affect, not likely to adversely affect Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered No effect Invertebrates Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata Threatened No effect Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis Threatened No effect Seagrass Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii Threatened No effect

8-2 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 9.0 References

2 10 CFR Part 51. 2011. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 3 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." 4 Washington, D.C. TN250.

5 10 CFR Part 52. 2012. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses, 6 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." Washington, D.C. TN251.

7 40 CFR Part 230. 2008. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 8 230, "Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill 9 Material." Washington, D.C. TN427.

10 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants." 11 Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN260.

12 73 FR 72210. November 26, 2008. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for 13 Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals." Federal Register, National Marine Fisheries 14 Service, Washington, D.C. TN421.

15 74 FR 45353. September 2, 2009. “Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for 16 the Endangered Distinct Population Segment of Smalltooth Sawfish." Federal Register, 17 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. TN271.

18 75 FR 12598. March 16, 2010. “Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Listing of 19 Nine Distinct Population Segments of Loggerhead Sea Turtles as Endangered or Threatened.” 20 Federal Register, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. TN2763.

21 77 FR 4170. January 26, 2012. "Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Rule to Revise 22 the Critical Habitat Designation for the Endangered Leatherback Sea Turtle." Federal Register, 23 National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. TN2677.

24 77 FR 61559. October 10, 2012. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a 25 Petition to List Nassau Grouper as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species 26 Act." Federal Register, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. 27 TN3238.

28 77 FR 61573. October 10, 2012. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of 5-Year 29 Review for Kemp's Ridley, Olive Ridley, Leatherback, and Hawksbill Sea Turtles." Federal 30 Register, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. TN2678.

31 78 FR 43006. July 18, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical 32 Habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Loggerhead Sea Turtle Distinct Population Segment 33 (DPS) and Determination Regarding Critical Habitat for the North Pacific Ocean Loggerhead 34 DPS." Federal Register, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. TN2674.

9-1 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 79 FR 53851. September 10, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final 2 Listing Determinations on Proposal to List 66 Reef-Building Coral Species and to Reclassify 3 Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals." Federal Register, National Marine Fisheries Service, 4 Washington, D.C. TN4097.

5 16 USC 1531 et seq. Endangered Species Act of 1973. TN1010.

6 16 USC 1801 et seq. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996. 7 TN1061.

8 33 USC 403 et seq. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended. TN660.

9 33 USC 1344 et seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act [also referred to as Clean Water Act]. 10 "Permits for Dredged or Fill Material." TN1019.

11 33 USC 2201 et seq. Water Resources Development Act of 2000. TN1037.

12 Bartol, S.M., J.A. Musick, and M.L. Lenhardt. 1993. "Auditory Evoked Potentials of the 13 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta). Copeia 1999(3):836-840, Lawrence, Kansas. 14 TN3431.

15 Brainard, R.E., C. Birkeland, C.M. Eakin, P. McElhany, M.W. Miller, M. Patterson, and G.A. 16 Piniak. 2011. Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species Petitioned Under the U.S. 17 Endangered Species Act. NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-27, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 18 Administration, Honolulu, Hawaii. Accession No. ML14290A602. TN1517.

19 Brausch, J.M. and G.M. Rand. 2011. “A Review of Personal Care Products in the Aquatic 20 Environment: Environmental Concentrations and Toxicity.” Chemosphere 82:1518–1532, New 21 York, New York. TN1002.

22 Browder, J.A., R. Alleman, S. Markley, P. Ortner and P.A. Pitts. 2005. “Biscayne Bay 23 Conceptual Ecological Model.” Wetlands 25(4):854-869, Fargo, North Dakota. TN151.

24 Cela, M., J. Hulsey, and J.G. Titus. 2010. “South Florida.” Chapter 8 in The Likelihood of 25 Shore Protection along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Volume 2: New England and 26 the Southeast. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 27 ML12269A197. TN1034.

28 CERP (Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan). 2012. “About CERP: Brief Overview.” 29 West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A241. TN1035.

30 Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, 31 E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. Witherington. 32 2009. Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 Status Review Under the U.S. 33 Endangered Species Act. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 34 ML14279A259. TN1673.

9-2 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 DeRuiter, S.L. and K.L. Doukara. 2012. "Loggerhead Turtles Dive in Response to Air Gun 2 Sound Exposure." Endangered Species Research 16:55-63, Lüneburg, Germany. TN3430.

3 Dow Piniak, W.E., D.A. Mann, S.A. Eckert, and C.A. Harms. 2012. "Amphibious Hearing in 4 Sea Turtles." Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 730:83-87, Philadelphia, 5 Pennsylvania. TN3432.

6 EAI (Ecological Associates, Inc.). 2009. Species and Relative Abundances of Fish and 7 Shellfish in the Vicinity of the Turkey Point Plant Based on Recent Collections. Jensen Beach, 8 Florida. Accession No. ML12240A280. TN154.

9 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "ECOTOX Database." Washington, D.C. 10 Accession No. ML14301A008. TN1525.

11 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2005. Bioassays of Florida Power & 12 Light Company - Cutler Power Plant. Division of Resource Assessment and Management, 13 Tallahassee, Florida. Available at ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/labs/lds/reports/6101.pdf. 14 TN1148.

15 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. Siting Coordination. 16 Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/default.htm. TN2629.

17 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2010. Shortnose Sturgeon 18 Population Evaluation in the St. Johns River, Florida. Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 19 http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/sturgeon/research/population-evaluation/. TN160.

20 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. Florida’s Endangered and 21 Threatened Species. Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 22 http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/. TN158.

23 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2012. Email from R. Hardy to J. 24 Ward and R. Trindell, dated November 28, 2012, regarding "Question on FFWCC Sea Turtle 25 GIS Mapping Website." Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida. Accession No. 26 ML14345A283. TN4120.

27 FMNH (Florida Museum of Natural History). 2014. Email from C. McGarigal to J. Ward and A. 28 Williamson, dated January 22, 2014, regarding “Sawfish Data.” Gainesville, Florida. Accession 29 No. ML14342A022. TN3250.

30 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2000. Florida Power & Light Company Application for 31 Renewed Operating Licenses, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, Applicant's Environmental Report— 32 Operating License Renewal Stage, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. Florida Power & Light Company 33 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Revision 1. Accession No. ML003749667. TN3947.

34 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2008. "Request for Information on Federal Listed 35 Species in Miami-Dade County, Florida." FLNA-08-0288, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 36 ML14336A330. TN1897.

9-3 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Barge Delivery Plan 2 Barge Facility. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML12240A281. TN169.

3 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Final Fish Surveys of the Turkey Point 4 Property Associated with Units 6 & 7, June 23-24, 2009. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. 5 ML11168A043. TN201.

6 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Letter from M. Nazar to NRC, dated June 30, 7 2009, regarding "Application for Combined License for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7.” L-2009- 8 144, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML091830589. TN1229.

9 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Letter from M. Gettler to NRC, dated August 7, 10 2009, regarding "Supplemental Meteorological Data in Support of Application for Combined 11 License.” L-2009-146, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML092250585. TN1230.

12 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2010. Site Certification Application Turkey Point 13 Units 6 & 7, Amendment, Rev. 1. 0938-7652/230, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 14 ML14336A332. TN272.

15 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2010. Letter from B. Linkiewicz to M. Halpin, dated 16 May 7, 2012, regarding "FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project, Amendment to Site Certification 17 Application (PA03-45A3).” FPLNNP-10-0125, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 18 ML14216A492. TN1231.

19 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated March 7, 20 2012, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 1112081 (RAI 21 5765) ESRP Section 4.2 – Water-Related Impacts." L-2012-101, Juno Beach, Florida. 22 Accession No. ML12074A041. TN263.

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

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

31 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project Manatee 32 Protection Plan. Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A343. TN2768.

33 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2013. Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2013–2022. 34 Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A344. TN2630.

35 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2014. Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2014–2023. 36 Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A345. TN3360.

9-4 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2014. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated August 2 12, 2014, regarding "Florida Power & Light Company Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 3 Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041, Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment Report 4 for the Combined License Application Part 3 – Environmental Report.” L-2014-260, Juno 5 Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A346. TN3717.

6 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2014. Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 and 7 COL 7 Application – Part 3: Environmental Report. Revision 6, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 8 ML14342A011. TN4058.

9 GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 10 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (editors). Cambridge University Press, 11 New York, New York. Available at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate- 12 impacts-report.pdf. TN18.

13 Lietz, A.C. and M.T. Meyer. 2006. Evaluation of Emerging Contaminants of Concern at the 14 South District Wastewater Treatment Plant Based on Seasonal Sampling Events, Miami-Dade 15 County, Florida, 2004. Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5240, U.S. Geological Survey, 16 Reston, Virginia. TN1005.

17 Lirman, D., B. Orlando, S. Macia, D. Manzello, L. Kaufman, P. Biber, and T. Jones. 2003. 18 "Coral Communities of Biscayne Bay, Florida and Adjacent Offshore Areas; Diversity, 19 Abundance, Distribution, and Environmental Correlates." Aquatic Conservation: Marine and 20 Freshwater Ecosystems 13(2003):121-135, Malden, Massachusetts. TN1519.

21 Martin, K.J., S.C. Alessi, J.C. Gaspard, A.T. Tucker, G.B. Bauer, and D.A. Mann. 2012. 22 "Underwater Hearing in the Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta): A Comparison of Behavioral 23 and Auditory Evoked Potential Audiograms." Journal of Experimental Biology 215:3001-3009, 24 Cambridge, United Kingdom. TN3434.

25 McAdory, R., T.C. Pratt, M.T. Hebler, T.L. Fagerburg, and R. Curry. 2002. Biscayne Bay Field 26 Data, Volume 1, Main Text. ERDC/CHL TR-02-8, U.S. Army Engineer Research and 27 Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Accession No. ML14211A617. TN1155.

28 Miami-Dade County. 2011. Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Rehydration Pilot Project Pilot 29 Plant Closeout Report. Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department, Miami, Florida. 30 Accession No. ML12269A237. TN1006.

31 National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second 32 Biennial Review – 2008. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN666.

33 National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third 34 Biennial Review – 2010. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN1036.

35 National Research Council. 2012. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Fourth 36 Biennial Review – 2012. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN2685.

9-5 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Nelson, D.M., M.E. Monaco, E.A. Irlandi, L.R. Settle, and L. Coston-Clements. 1991. 2 Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Southeast Estuaries. ELMR Report 3 Number 9, NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 4 Accession No. ML12240A286. TN174.

5 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. "Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish 6 Construction Conditions." St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A348. TN3451.

7 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Memorandum from M. Barnette to D. 8 Bernhart, dated January 12, 2009, regarding "Threats and Effects Analysis for Protected 9 Resources on Vessel Traffic Associated with Dock and Marina Construction." F/SER31:MCB, 10 St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML14287A774. TN1475.

11 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. 12 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5–Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 13 Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14107A352. TN1690.

14 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. 15 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Five Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 16 Silver Spring, Maryland (NMFS), and Jacksonville, Florida (FWS). Accession No. 17 ML14094A062. TN2507.

18 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and 19 SEMARNAT (Mexico Secretariat of Environment & Natural Resources). 2010. Draft Bi-National 20 Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Second Revision, Silver 21 Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML14107A262. TN1691.

22 NMFS/FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. 23 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5–Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 24 Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14279A270. TN1689.

25 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. Species of Concern Nassau 26 Grouper (Epinephelus striatus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 27 Accession No. ML12240A309. TN191.

28 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. Critical Habitat. Office of 29 Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML12240A292. TN179.

30 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. Johnson's Seagrass 31 (Halophila johnsonii). Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. 32 ML12240A293. TN180.

33 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis 34 pectinata Latham) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries 35 Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML14279A311. TN1724.

9-6 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. "Condition Report 2011 for 2 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary." Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Key West, 3 Florida. Accession No. ML14309A278. TN1847.

4 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. "STSSN—Sea Turtle 5 Stranding by Zone Report, Zone 25, 2008–2012." Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, 6 Florida. Accession No. ML14279A262. TN1674.

7 NOAA (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2012. "Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network 8 (STSSN)." Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14345A279. 9 TN1842.

10 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. "Marine Mammals." Silver 11 Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML14309A280. TN1850.

12 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. "Sea Turtles." Office of 13 Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML14309A281. TN1851.

14 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 15 Service). 2007. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonioa mydas) 5–Year Review: Summary and 16 Evaluation. Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14107A336. TN1587.

17 NOAA Fisheries (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine 18 Fisheries Service). 2014. "NOAA Lists 20 New Corals as Threatened Under the Endangered 19 Species Act." Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML14345A272. TN4022.

20 NOAA SEFSC (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Southeast Fisheries Science 21 Center). 2014. "Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network." Miami, Florida. Accession No. 22 ML14345A274. TN4067.

23 NPS (National Park Service). 2007. "Interim Outdoor Lighting Guidelines (Draft)." NPS Night 24 Sky Team, Version 1.0, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A531. TN3449.

25 NPS (National Park Service). 2012. “Biscayne National Park Florida Fishery Management 26 Plan.” Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14192B226. TN1116.

27 NPS (National Park Service). 2012. "Biscayne National Park - Mammals." Washington, D.C. 28 Accession No. ML14328A533. TN1849.

29 NPS (National Park Service). 2014. Biscayne National Park Fishery Management Plan. 30 Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A029. TN4072.

31 NPS (National Park Service). 2014. Fishery Management Plan Final Environmental Impact 32 Statement. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A030. TN4073.

33 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. “Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3.” 34 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14217A379. TN1298.

9-7 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. “Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 4.” 2 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14217A573. TN1299.

3 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from J.C. Paige to Florida Power 4 and Light Company, dated June 15, 2012, “Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 – Issuance of 5 Amendments Regarding Extended Power Uprate (TAC Nos. ME4907 and ME4908).” 6 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML11293A365. TN1438.

7 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Estimated Effects of Proposed Radial 8 Collector Well Pumpage Near Turkey Point Nuclear Facility, Miami-Dade County, Florida. In 9 conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. ML14345A290. 10 TN3078.

11 Ogden, J.C., S.M. Davis, K.J. Jacobs, T. Barnes, and H.E. Fling. 2005. “The Use of 12 Conceptual Ecological Models to Guide Ecosystem Restoration in South Florida.” Wetlands 13 25(4):795-809, Fargo, North Dakota. TN196.

14 Ogden, J.C., S.M. Davis, T.K. Barnes, K.J. Jacobs, and J.H. Gentile. 2005. “Total System 15 Conceptual Ecological Model.” Wetlands 25(4):955-979, Fargo, North Dakota. TN197.

16 Ridgway, S.H., E.G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and J.H. Anderson. 1969. "Hearing in 17 the Giant Sea Turtle, Chelonia Mydas." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of 18 the United States of America 64(3):884-890, Washington, D.C. TN3433.

19 Robles, M.D., T. Armentano, D. DiResta, M.R. Lara, D.L. Jones and M.J. Butler. 2005. 20 Condition of the Natural Resources of Biscayne National Park. National Parks Conservation 21 Association, Washington, D.C. TN198.

22 Sadovy, Y. and A.M. Eklund. 1999. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Nassau Grouper, 23 Epinephelus striatus (Bloch 1792), and the Jewfish, E. itajara (Lichtenstein, 1822). NOAA 24 Technical Report NMFS 146, Seattle, Washington. Accession No. ML12240A298. TN200.

25 Samuel, Y., S.J. Morreale, C.W. Clark, C.H. Greene, and M.E. Richmond. 2005. "Underwater, 26 Low-Frequency Noise in a Coastal Sea Turtle Habitat." Journal of the Acoustical Society of 27 America 117(3):1465-1472, Melville, New York. TN3435.

28 Sea Turtle Conservancy. 2011. "Scientific Classification of Sea Turtles." Available at 29 http://www.conserveturtles.org/seaturtleinformation.php?page=species_class. TN1898.

30 Seitz, J.C., and G.R. Poulakis. 2006. "Anthropogenic effects on the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis 31 pectinata) in the United States." Marine Pollution Bulletin 52:1533-1540, New York, New York. 32 TN2673.

33 Serafy, J.E., M. Valle, C.H. Faunce, and J. Luo. 2007. “Species-Specific Patterns of Fish 34 Abundance and Size Along a Subtropical Mangrove Shoreline: An Application of the Delta 35 Approach.” Bulletin of Marine Science 80(3):609-624, Miami, Florida. TN215.

9-8 Biological Assessment for the National Marine Fisheries Service

1 SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2005. South Dade Wetlands Conceptual 2 Land Management Plan 2005 – 2010. West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. 3 ML12198A094. TN217.

4 State of Florida. 2014. "Final Order on Certification, In Re: Florida Power and Light Company 5 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Power Plant Siting Application No. PA 03–45A3." State of Florida 6 Siting Board, OGC Case No. 09–3107, Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 09– 7 03575–EPP, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14345A291. TN3637.

8 Titus, J.G., K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, 9 and S.J. Williams. 2009. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic 10 Region. U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), Washington, D.C. Available at 11 http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap4-1/sap4-1-final-report-all.pdf. TN1360.

12 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2009. Water Resource Policies and Authorities 13 Incorporating Sea-Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs. Circular No. 1165-2- 14 211, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14267A012. TN1359.

15 USACE/SFMWD (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/South Florida Water Management District). 16 2011. Central and Southern Florida Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 17 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and 18 Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 – Main Report. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, 19 Florida. Accession No. ML12270A058. TN1038.

20 Wang, J.D., J. Luo, and J.S. Ault. 2003. "Flows, Salinity, and Some Implications for Larval 21 Transport in South Biscayne Bay, Florida." Bulletin of Marine Science 72(3): 695-723, Miami, 22 Florida. TN105.

23

9-9