L-2022-022, Updated Conditions of Certification Report

Updated Conditions of Certification Report

ML22046A302
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	02/14/2022
From:	Hess R Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-2022-022
Download: ML22046A302 (1)

Text

February 14, 2022 L-2022-022 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn : Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Re: Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Updated Conditions of Certification Report The State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection has issued on January 24, 2022 the Conditions of Certification for Florida Power & Light Company's Nuclear Power Plants Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, and Unit 5 Combined Cycle Plant.

The attached document is submitted pursuant to Turkey Point Technical Specifications, Appendix B Section 3.2.2, which states in part that changes and additions to the State 401 Certification shall be reported to NRC within 30 days following the date the change is approved.

Should there be any questions regarding this information, please contact Mr. Robert Hess, Licensing Manager, at (305) 246-4112.

Licensing Manager Turkey Point Nuclear Plant SM cc: Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, Turkey Point Plant Enclosure Florida Power & Light Company 9760 S.W. 344 th Street Homestead, FL 33035

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF Ron DeSantis Governor Environmental Protection Jeanette Nunez Lt. Governor Bob Martinez Center Shawn Hamilton 2600 Blair Stone Road Secretary Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 January 24, 2022 Sent by Electronic Mail - Document Access Verification Requested Danielle L. Hall Environmental Services Manager Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Danielle.Hall@fpl.com RE: Turkey Point Clean Energy Center Modification to Conditions of Certification DEP Case Number PA03-45G OGC Case Number 21-1228 FINAL ORDER MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

Dear Ms. Hall:

On February 8, 2005, the Florida Siting Board issued a Site Certification to Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Turkey Point Plant Unit 5 (TPP). On October 29, 2008, TPP Units 3 and 4 were Certified. The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has modified the Conditions of Certification (Conditions) for TPP by Final Order on six other occasions.

The Department has reviewed FPLs petition, received on July 29, 2021, for a modification to the TPPs Site Certification order pursuant to §403.516(1)(c), Florida Statutes (F.S.), for the construction and operation of the FPL Miami-Dade Clean Water Recovery Center including installation of an 8-mile 42-inch diameter water pipeline from the Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Departments South District Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Unit 5 site and a new reclaimed water treatment facility.

On December 7, 2021, all parties to the certification proceeding were provided a notice of the Departments intent to modify the Conditions for TPP. On December 15, 2021, notice of the Departments intent to modify the Conditions for TPP was also published in the Florida Administrative Register (FAR).

Pursuant to §403.516, F.S., and Rule 62-17.211, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), all parties to the certification proceeding have 45 days from the issuance of notice in which to file a written objection to the modification. Pursuant to §403.516, F.S., and Rule 62-17.211, F.A.C., any person who is not already a party to the certification proceeding and whose substantial interests will be affected by the requested modification has 30 days from the date of publication of the public notice in the FAR to object in writing. Failure to act within the time frame constitutes a waiver of the right

Turkey Point Clean Energy Center Mod G -FO January 24, 2022 Page 2 of 3 to become a party. These timeframes have expired and no objections to the modification have been received by the Department. The final Conditions of Certification (including attachments) may be viewed and obtained from the following website:

http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/Siting/Outgoing/Web/Certification/pa03_45_2022_G.pdf.

Copies of the Conditions and/or attachments may also be obtained by contacting the Department of Environmental Protection, Siting Coordination Office, 2600 Blair Stone Rd., M.S. 5500, Tallahassee, Florida, (850) 717-9000.

Any party to this Order has a right to seek judicial review of it pursuant to §120.68, F.S., by filing a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Clerk of the Department of Environmental Protection in the Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal, accompanied by the applicable filing fees, with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Department of Environmental Protection.

Sincerely, Cindy Mulkey Program Administrator, Siting Coordination Office CC by Electronic Mail:

District Director, DEP - jason.andreotta@dep.state.fl.us District Liaison, DEP - indarjit.jagnarine@dep.state.fl.us FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED, on this date, pursuant to §120.52 Florida Statutes, with the designated Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.

Clerk Date

Turkey Point Clean Energy Center Mod G -FO January 24, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Service List: Sent by Electronic Mail - Document Access Verification Requested Stephanie Gray, Esquire Emily Johnson, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Office of Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 35 South Florida Water Management District Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 3301 Gun Club Road stephanie.a.gray@floridadep.gov West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 kelley.corbari@floridadep.gov ejohnson@sfwmd.gov Emily Norton, Esquire Geri Bonzon-Keenan, Esquire Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission Miami-Dade County 620 South Meridian Street 111 NW 1st Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Miami, Florida 33128 Emily.Norton@MyFWC.com gbk@miamidade.gov ConservationPlanningServices@myfwc.com Lee.Hefty@miamidade.gov Christine.Velazquez@miamidade.gov Valerie Wright, Esquire Lee Eng Tan, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity Florida Public Service Commission 107 East Madison Street Office of General Counsel Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2450 Shumard Oak Boulevard Valerie.Wright@deo.myflorida.com Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Scott.Rogers@deo.myflorida.com LTan@psc.state.fl.us Richard Shine, Esquire Jon Morris, Esquire Jasmin Raffington Department of the State Department of Transportation Division of Historical Resources 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 richard.shine2@dot.state.fl.us Jon.Morris@dos.myflorida.com jasmin.raffington@dot.state.fl.us CompliancePermits@dos.myflorida.com april.combs@dot.state.fl.us romero.dill@dot.state.fl.us Samuel S. Goren, Esquire Atlantic Civil, Inc.

South Florida Regional Planning Council Represented by:

1 Oakwood Boulevard, Suite 250 Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A.

Hollywood, Florida 33020 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1500 SGoren@gorencherof.com West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Andrew J. Baumann, Esquire Peter Cocotos, Esquire Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Florida Power & Light Company abaumann@llw-law.com 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 810 amalefatto@llw-law.com Tallahassee, FL 32301 peter.cocotos@fpl.com

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Conditions of Certification Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point Clean Energy Center Units 3 and 4 Nuclear Power Plant Unit 5 Combined Cycle Plant PA 03-45G 1/24/2022

Table of Contents SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS................................................................. 1 I. SCOPE ............................................................................................................. 1 II. APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT RULES ..................................................... 3 III. REVISIONS TO DEPARTMENT STATUTES AND RULES .................. 4 IV. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................ 5 V. FEDERALLY DELEGATED OR APPROVED PERMIT PROGRAMS 6 VI. DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ............................................ 6 VII. NOTIFICATION ............................................................................................ 7 VIII. EMERGENCY CONDITION NOTIFICATION AND RESTORATION 8 IX. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES .................................................................. 8 A. Local Building Codes ........................................................................... 8 B. Open Burning ........................................................................................ 8 C. Vegetation ............................................................................................. 8 D. Existing Underground Utilities ............................................................. 8 E. Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF)..................................................... 9 F. Existing Wells ....................................................................................... 9 G. Abandonment of Existing Septic Tanks ............................................... 9 H. Sanitary Wastes ..................................................................................... 9 X. RIGHT OF ENTRY........................................................................................ 9 XI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION............................................................................ 10 A. General ................................................................................................ 10 B. Modifications ...................................................................................... 10 C. Post-certification Submittals ............................................................... 10 XII. SEVERABILITY .......................................................................................... 10 XIII. ENFORCEMENT ......................................................................................... 10 XIV. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION ............................................................ 11 XV. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ............................................................... 11 XVI. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY ....................................................... 11 XVII. USE OF STATE LANDS ............................................................................. 12 XVIII. PROCEDURAL RIGHTS ............................................................................ 13 Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G i

XIX. AGENCY ADDRESSES FOR POST-CERTIFICATION SUBMITTALS AND NOTICES ............................................................................................. 13 XX. PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION ........................................................ 14 XXI. PROCEDURES FOR POST-CERTIFICATION SUBMITTALS ........... 14 A. Purpose of Submittals ......................................................................... 14 B. Filings ................................................................................................. 14 C. Completeness ...................................................................................... 15 D. Interagency Meetings .......................................................................... 15 E. Determination of Compliance ............................................................. 15 F. Commencement of Construction ........................................................ 15 G. Revisions to Design Previously Reviewed for Compliance ............... 16 XXII. POST-CERTIFICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY

......................................................................................................................... 16 XXIII. POST-CERTIFICATION AMENDMENTS .............................................. 16 XXIV. MODIFICATION OF CERTIFICATION ................................................. 17 XXV. COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY ........................................................... 18 XXVI. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION .................................................... 18 XXVII. TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATION ........................................................... 18 XXVIII. LABORATORIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE.................................. 19 XXIX. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES........................................................... 19 A. General ................................................................................................ 19 B. Surface Water Management Systems ................................................. 20 C. Wetland and Other Surface Water Impacts ........................................ 22 XXX. THIRD PARTY IMPACTS ......................................................................... 22 XXXI. FACILITY OPERATION ............................................................................ 22 XXXII. RECORDS MAINTAINED AT THE FACILITY ..................................... 22 XXXIII. WATER DISCHARGES .............................................................................. 23 XXXIV. SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE ........................................................ 24 A. Solid Waste ......................................................................................... 24 B. Hazardous Waste, Used Oil, Petroleum Contact Water, and Spent Mercury ........................................................................................................... 24 C. Hazardous Substance Release Notification ........................................ 24 D. Contaminated Site Cleanup................................................................. 25 Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G ii

XXXVI. STORAGE TANK SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 25 A. Incident Notification Requirements. ................................................... 25 B. Discharge Reporting Requirements .................................................... 25 C. Discharge Cleanup .............................................................................. 25 D. Out of Service and Closure Requirements .......................................... 26 SECTION B. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ................................................................ 27 I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .................... 27 A. Radiological - Specific to Units 3 & 4 ............................................... 27 B. CWRC Solid Waste ............................................................................ 28 C. CWRC HDD Requirements ................................................................ 28 D. Screening............................................................................................. 30 II. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ............................................... 30 A. Access Management to the State Highway System: ........................... 30 B. Overweight or Overdimensional Loads: ............................................. 30 C. Use of State of Florida Right of Way or Transportation Facilities: .... 30 D. Standards: ............................................................................................ 30 E. Drainage: ............................................................................................. 30 F. Use of Air Space: ................................................................................ 31 G. Level of Service on State Roadway Facilities: ................................... 31 H. Best Management Practices ................................................................ 31 I. Railroad Spur ...................................................................................... 32 III. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ................... 33 A. General ................................................................................................ 33 B. Water Use Authorizations ................................................................... 34 C. Site Specific Design Authorizations ................................................... 36 D. Right-of-Way ...................................................................................... 39

1. General ......................................................................................... 39

2. Access ............................................................................................ 40 IV. FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 41 A. General Listed Species Surveys .......................................................... 41 B. Endangered and Threatened Species .................................................. 42 C. Gopher Tortoise .................................................................................. 42 D. Cooling Canal System Crocodile Population Protection .................... 42 Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G iii

E. Horizontal Directional Drilling Manatee Protection Conservation Measures ......................................................................................................... 43 V. DEPARTMENT OF STATE - DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 44 VI. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 45 VII. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ............................................................................ 45 A. General ................................................................................................ 45 B. Unit 5 Expansion Project .................................................................... 45 C. Review and Monitoring of Additional Freshening Activities............. 48 D. CWRC Construction and Operation ................................................... 48 E. Flood Control Protection..................................................................... 49 F. Noise ................................................................................................... 49 VIII. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ............................................................... 50 A. Emergency Plan - Units 3 & 4 ........................................................... 50 B. Comprehensive Hurricane Preparation and Recovery Plan ................ 50 IX. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ................................................................... 50 A. Monitoring - Units 3 & 4.................................................................... 50 B. Interagency Agreement - Units 3 & 4 ................................................ 50 X. UNITS 3 & 4 ADDITIONAL MONITORING .......................................... 50 A. Biscayne Bay Surface Water Monitoring ........................................... 50 B. Surface Water, Groundwater, and Ecological Monitoring ................. 51 C. Cooling Canal System Floridan Production Well Monitoring ........... 53 HISTORY ........................................................................................................................ 53 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A ................................. Certified Site/Facilities Delineation Map(s)

Attachment B ................................ Surface Water Management System Plan(s)

Attachment C ......................................................................... Mitigation Plan(s)

Attachment D ...................... Horizontal Directional Drilling Contingency Plan EXHIBITS Exhibit A ...................................... Emergency Response Capability Agreement Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G iv

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS These General Conditions shall be applicable to all areas of the certified site.

Compliance with the General Conditions shall be the joint responsibility of Florida Power &

Light Company (FPL) Turkey Point Clean Energy Center Nuclear Plant (Units 3 & 4) and Fossil Fuel Plant (Unit 5). Any violation of a General Condition shall be a violation by FPL.

I. SCOPE A. Pursuant to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA), Sections 403.501-.518, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapter 62-17, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.),

this Certification is issued to FPL as owner/operator and Licensee of the Turkey Point Clean Energy Center Units 3-5. The Department recognizes that Nuclear Units 3 & 4 and Fossil Unit 5 are under the control of different divisions of FPL. Unless otherwise specified, FPL shall be responsible for the compliance with the conditions herein. Violation of any conditions specific to Units 3, 4, or 5 shall solely affect the license of the responsible generating units. Subject to the requirements contained in these Conditions of Certification (Conditions), FPL will construct, operate, and maintain a nominal 1,150 megawatt (MW) facility (Unit 5) consisting of four 170 MW natural gas fired combustion turbines with light oil as back-up fuel, four heat recovery steam generators and one 470 MW steam turbine, and one nuclear plant consisting of two nominal 800 MW pressurized water reactors (Units 3 and 4), and Associated facilities as described in the Site Certification Application(s) (SCA). The electric generating units are located on an existing 11,000-acre site at 9700 S.W. 344 Street, Homestead, in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Unit 5 is located on approximately 90 acres and Units 3 & 4 are located on approximately 30 acres of the existing site. The UTM coordinates are: Zone 17, 567.2 km East and 2813.2 km North; Latitude: 25° 26 09 North and Longitude: 80° 19 52 West.

B. The certified facility includes but is not limited to the following major associated facilities:

• Unit 5 - Fossil Plant o Four combustion turbines o Four heat recovery steam generators o One steam turbine/electric generator to create four-on-one combined cycle unit o Emergency Diesel engines, generator engines, and emergency generators o Diesel Fire pump o Switchyard/substation o Stormwater pond o Cooling tower o Oil tanks o Demineralized water treatment plant o Administrative and storage buildings o Storage tanks o Reclaimed water treatment facility (Clean Water Recovery Center - CWRC) o Reclaimed waterline o Floridan production wells (PW-1 through PW-4)

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 1

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS

• Units 3 & 4 - Nuclear Plant o Containment building Two pressurized water reactors Steam generators Reactor coolant pumps o Turbine Generator building o Auxiliary building Waste management facilities Safety components o Fuel handling building Spent fuel storage New fuel storage o Administrative and storage buildings o Switchyard o Demineralized water treatment plant o Floridan production wells F-1 through F-7 C. These Conditions, unless specifically amended or modified, are binding upon the Licensee and shall apply to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the certified facility. If a conflict should occur between the design criteria of this certified facility and the Conditions, the Conditions shall prevail unless amended or modified. In any conflict between any of these Conditions, the more specific condition governs.

D. Within 60 days after completion of construction of the electrical power plant as defined by Section 403.503(14), F.S., but excluding off-site linear and non-linear Associated facilities, the Licensee shall provide to the Department in .pdf format: a survey map signed by a professional land surveyor, or acceptable equivalent documentation such as an official legal description, delineating the boundaries of the site as defined by Section 403.503(28), F.S., and an aerial photograph delineating the boundaries of the site. The survey map and aerial photograph shall be labelled as the Site Delineation Map and attached hereto as part of Attachment A.

E. The Licensee shall notify the Department of any change to the site boundary depicted in the Site Delineation Map in Attachment A. The notification shall be accompanied by an updated survey map or legal description and aerial photograph delineating the new boundaries of the site for review by the Department. Such changes may constitute a modification and may require additional land use and zoning reviews by the local government. If a modification is required, it will be processed pursuant to Section 403.516, F.S.

F. If both certified and uncertified facilities lie within the boundaries of the site, the Licensee shall also comply with the requirements of this paragraph. Within 60 days after completion of construction of the plant and on-site associated facilities, but excluding off-site linear and non-linear associated facilities, the Licensee shall provide to the Department in .pdf format acceptable documentation identifying the certified and non-certified facilities within the site such as an aerial photograph. Certified facilities identified within the site shall include both the certified electrical power plants generating and its on-site certified associated facilities (including on-site linear facilities) as defined by Section 403.503(7), F.S. The document shall be Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 2

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS labelled as the Certified Facilities Identification Map and attached hereto as part of Attachment A.

G. Within 120 days after completion of construction of any certified off-site non-linear associated facilities, the Licensee shall provide to the Department in .pdf format; a survey map signed by a professional land surveyor, or acceptable equivalent documentation such as an official legal description, delineating the site boundaries for each off-site non-linear associated facility. The survey map or other documents shall be labelled as the Delineation of the Boundaries of the Certified Off-Site Non-Linear Facilities and attached hereto as part of Attachment A.

H. Within 180 days after completion of construction of any new off-site linear associated facilities, as defined in Section 403.503(7), F.S., the Licensee shall provide; an aerial photograph or map at a scale of at least 1:400, or acceptable equivalent documentation such as an official legal description or survey map signed by a professional land surveyor, delineating the boundaries of the certified site for the linear associated facilities, following acquisition of all necessary property interests and the corridor narrowing as described in Section 403.503(11), F.S.

These documents shall be labelled as the Delineation of Certified Off-Site Linear Facilities and attached as part of Attachment A.

I. Following any post-certification approvals that require a change to the boundaries of the certified facilities depicted in the Delineation of Certified Off-Site Linear Facilities in Attachment A, the Licensee shall submit an updated aerial photograph, map, survey map, or legal description.

[Sections 403.511, 403.5113, F.S.; Rules 62-4.160(1), (2), and 62-17.205(2), F.A.C.]

II. APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT RULES The construction, operation, and maintenance of the certified facility shall be in accordance with all applicable non-procedural provisions of Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code, including, but not limited to, the applicable non-procedural portions of the following Department regulations, except to the extent a variance, exception, exemption, or other relief is granted in the final order of certification or in a subsequent modification to the Conditions, or under a federal permit, or as otherwise provided under Chapter 403, F.S.:

Florida Administrative Code:

18-2 (Management of Uplands Vested in the Board of Trustees) 18-14 (Administrative Fines for Damaging State Lands) 18-20 (Florida Aquatic Preserves) 18-21 (Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management) 62-4 (Permits) 62-6 (Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment And Disposal Systems) 62-17 (Electrical Power Plant Siting) 62-40 (Water Resource Implementation Rule)62-150 (Hazardous Substance Release Notification)62-160 (Quality Assurance)62-204 (Air Pollution Control-General Provisions)62-210 (Stationary Sources-General Requirements)62-212 (Stationary Sources-Preconstruction Review)

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 3

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS62-213 (Operation Permits for Major Sources of Air Pollution)62-256 (Open Burning)62-296 (Stationary Sources-Emission Standards)62-297 (Stationary Sources-Emission Monitoring)62-302 (Surface Water Quality Standards)62-303 (Identification of Impaired Surface Waters)62-304 (Total Maximum Daily Loads)62-330 (Environmental Resource Permitting)62-340 (Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters)62-342 (Mitigation Banks)62-345 (Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method)62-520 (Ground Water Classes, Standards, and Exemptions)62-528 (Underground Injection Control)62-531 (Water Well Contractor Licensing Requirements)62-532 (Water Well Permitting and Construction Requirements)62-550 (Drinking Water Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting)62-555 (Permitting, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Public Water Systems)62-560 (Requirements for Public Water Systems That Are Out of Compliance)62-600 (Domestic Wastewater Facilities)62-604 (Collection Systems and Transmission Facilities)62-610 (Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application)62-620 (Wastewater Facilities and Activities Permitting)62-621 (Generic Permits)62-650 (Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations)62-660 (Industrial Wastewater Facilities)62-699 (Treatment Plan Classification and Staffing)62-701 (Solid Waste Management Facilities)62-709 (Criteria for Organics Processing and Recycling Facilities)62-710 (Used Oil Management)62-730 (Hazardous Waste)62-737 (The Management of Spent Mercury-Containing Lamps and Devices Destined for Recycling)62-740 (Petroleum Contact Water)62-761 (Underground Storage Tank Systems)62-762 (Aboveground Storage Tank Systems)62-769 (Abandoned Tank Restoration Program)62-777 (Contaminant Cleanup Target Levels)62-780 (Contaminated Site Cleanup Criteria)62-814 (Electric and Magnetic Fields)

III. REVISIONS TO DEPARTMENT STATUTES AND RULES A. The Licensee shall comply with rules adopted by the Department subsequent to the issuance of the Certification under the PPSA which prescribe new or stricter criteria, to the extent that the rules are applicable to electrical power plants. Except when a variance, exception, Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 4

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS exemption, or other relief has been granted, subsequently adopted Department rules which prescribe new or stricter criteria shall operate as automatic modifications to this Certification.

B. Upon written notification to the Department, the Licensee may choose to operate the certified electrical power plant in compliance with any rule subsequently adopted by the Department which prescribes criteria more lenient than the criteria required by the terms and conditions in the Certification which are not site-specific.

[Sections 403.511(5)(a) and (b), F.S.; Rule 62-4.160(10), F.A.C.]

IV. DEFINITIONS Unless otherwise indicated herein, the meaning of terms used herein shall be governed by the applicable definitions contained in Chapters 253, 373, 379, and 403, F.S., and any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. In the event of any dispute over the meaning of a term used in these Conditions which is not defined in such statutes or regulations, such dispute shall be resolved by reference to the most relevant definitions contained in any other state or federal statute or regulation, or in the alternative, by the use of the commonly accepted meaning. As used herein, the following shall apply:

A. Application or SCA is defined in Section 403.503(6), F.S. For purposes of this license, Application shall also include materials submitted for post-certification amendments and petitions for modification to the Conditions of Certification, as well as supplemental applications.

B. Associated facility or associated facilities as defined by Section 403.503(7),

F.S.

C. Certified facility or certified facilities means the certified electrical power generation facilities and all certified on- or off-site associated facilities and structures identified or described in the Application, in the final order of certification, or in a post-certification amendment or modification.

D. DEO means the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.

E. DEM shall mean the Florida Division of Emergency Management.

F. DEP or Department means the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

G. DERM shall mean the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources Division of Environmental Resources Management of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

G. DHR means the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources.

H. DOT means the Florida Department of Transportation.

I. Emergency conditions or Emergency reporting means urgent circumstances involving potential adverse consequences to human life or property as a result of weather conditions or other calamity.

J. Feasible or Practicable means reasonably achievable considering a balance of land use impacts, environmental impacts, engineering constraints, and costs.

K. FWC means the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 5

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS L. Licensee means an applicant that has obtained a certification order for the subject project.

M. NED, NWD, CD, SED, SWD, SD shall mean the Northeast, Northwest, Central, Southeast, Southwest, and South DEP district offices, respectively.

N. NRC shall mean the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission O. NWF, SR, SJR, SWF, or SFWMD means the Northwest Florida, Suwannee River, St. Johns River, Southwest Florida, or South Florida Water Management District, respectively.

P. Post-certification submittal shall mean a submittal made by the Licensee pursuant to a Condition of certification.

Q. Right-of-Way or ROW is defined in Section 403.503(27), F.S.

R. SCA means the Site certification Application (i.e., the Application(s))

S. SCO means the Departments Siting Coordination Office.

T. Site is defined in Section 403.503(28), F.S.

U. State Water Quality Standards shall mean the numerical and narrative criteria applied to specific water uses or classifications set forth in Chapters62-302 and 62-520, F.A.C.

V. Surface Water Management System, SWMS, or System means a stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works, or any combination thereof. The terms surface water management system, SWMS, or system include areas of dredging or filling, as those terms are defined in Sections 373.403(13) and (14), F.S.

W. WASD shall mean the Water and Sewer Department of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

X. Wetlands shall mean those areas meeting the definition set forth in Section 373.019(27), F.S., as delineated pursuant to Chapter 62-340, F.A.C.

V. FEDERALLY DELEGATED OR APPROVED PERMIT PROGRAMS Subject to the Conditions set forth herein, this certification shall constitute the sole license of the state and any agency as to the approval of the location of the site and any Associated facility and the construction and operation of the electrical power plant, except for the issuance of Department Licenses required under any federally delegated or approved permit program. This certification is not a waiver of any other Department approval that may be required under federally delegated or approved programs. In the event of a conflict between the certification process and federally required procedures, the applicable federal requirements shall control.

[Sections 403.5055, 403.508(8), and 403.511(1), F.S.]

VI. DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Certification, including these conditions, is predicated upon preliminary designs, concepts, and performance criteria described in the SCA or in testimony and exhibits in support of certification. The final engineering design of the certified facilities will be consistent and in Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 6

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS substantial compliance with the preliminary information described in the SCA or as explained at the certification hearing (if any). Conformance to those criteria, unless specifically modified in accordance with Sections 403.516, F.S., and Rule 62-17.211, F.A.C., is binding upon the Licensee in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the certified facility.

[Sections 403.511(2)(a), 403.516, F.S.; Rules 62-4.160(2), and 62-17.211, F.A.C.]

VII. NOTIFICATION A. If, for any reason, the Licensee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any condition or limitation specified in this License, the Licensee shall provide the DEP District Office with the following information:

1. A description of and cause of noncompliance; and

2. The period of noncompliance, including dates and times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. The Licensee shall be responsible for any and all damages which may result and may be subject to enforcement action by the Department for penalties or for revocation of this certification.

3. All notifications which are made in writing shall additionally be provided to the SCO via email to SCO@dep.state.fl.us.

[Rule 62-4.160(8), F.A.C.]

B. The Licensee shall promptly notify the SCO in writing (email acceptable) of any previously submitted information concerning the certified facility that is later discovered to be inaccurate.

[Rule 62-4.160(15), F.A.C.]

C. Any owner or operator of a facility who has knowledge of any incident reportable to the State Watch Office regarding a certified facility shall notify the State Watch Office at (800) 320-0519 as soon as possible, but not later than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after discovery of the incident.

D. Any owner or operator of a facility who has knowledge of any reportable pollution release shall submit a Public Notice of Pollution by following the instructions at https://prodenv.dep.state.fl.us/DepPNP/user/pnpRequest, as soon as possible, but not later than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after discovery of the release.

[Section 403.077, F.S.]

E. Within 60 days after certification of a linear Associated facility the Licensee shall file a notice of the certified route with the Departments clerk (Office of General Counsel) and the clerk of the circuit court for each county through which the corridor will pass.

The notice shall consist of maps or aerial photographs in the scale of 1:24,000 which clearly show the location of the certified route and shall state that the certification of the corridor will result in the acquisition of rights-of-way within the corridor.

[Section 403.5112, F.S.]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 7

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS VIII. EMERGENCY CONDITION NOTIFICATION AND RESTORATION If the Licensee is temporarily unable to comply with any of the conditions of the License due to breakdown of equipment or destruction by hazard of fire, wind, or other cause, such as an emergency as defined by Sections 252.34(4), (7), (8), or (10), F.S., the Licensee shall immediately notify the Department. Notification shall include pertinent information as to the cause of the problem, and what steps are being taken to correct the problem and to prevent its recurrence, and where applicable, the owner's intent toward reconstruction of destroyed facilities.

Such notification does not release the Licensee from any liability for failure to comply with Department rules. Any exceedances and/or violations recorded during emergency conditions shall be reported as such, but the Department acknowledges that it intends to use its enforcement discretion during this timeframe. This acknowledgement by the Department does not constitute a waiver or variance from any requirements of any federal permit. Relief from any federal agency must be separately sought.

[Rule 62-4.130, F.A.C.]

IX. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES A. Local Building Codes Subject to the conditions set forth herein, this certification constitutes the sole license of the state and any agency as to the approval of the location of the site and any Associated facility and the construction and operation of any certified facility. The Licensee is not required to obtain building permits for certified facilities. However, this certification shall not affect in any way the right of any local government to charge appropriate fees or require that construction of structures used by the electrical power plant that are not an integral part of a generating plant, substation, or control center (such as, office buildings, warehouses, garages, machine shops, and recreational buildings) be in compliance with applicable building construction codes.

[Section 403.511(4), F.S.]

B. Open Burning Prior to open burning in connection with land clearing, the Licensee shall seek authorization from the Florida Forest Service in accordance with the requirements of Chapters62-256 and 5I-2, F.A.C.

[Chapters 5I-2 and 62-256, F.A.C.]

C. Vegetation For areas located in any Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) ROW, Chapter 3.18 of the 2017 Florida DOT Utility Accommodation Manual available on the DOT website at https://www.fdot.gov/programmanagement/utilities/default.shtm shall serve as guidelines for best management practices.

D. Existing Underground Utilities The Licensee must follow all applicable portions of the Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act, Chapter 556, F.S. The Licensee shall provide the affected local government and the SCO with copies of valid tickets obtained from Sunshine State One Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 8

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS Call of Florida upon request. Tickets shall be available for request until the underground work is completed for the affected area.

[Chapter 556, F.S.]

E. Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF)

Any transmission lines and electrical substations that are associated facilities shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 62-814, F.A.C.

[Chapter 62-814, F.A.C.]

F. Existing Wells Any existing wells to be impacted in the path of construction of certified facilities that will no longer be used shall be abandoned by a licensed well contractor. All abandoned wells shall be filled and sealed in accordance with Rule 62-532.500(5), F.A.C., or with the rules of the authorizing agency, or consistent with these Conditions.

[Rules62-532.400 and 62-532.500(5), F.A.C.]

G. Abandonment of Existing Septic Tanks Any existing septic tanks that will no longer be used shall be abandoned in accordance with Rule 64E-6.011, F.A.C., unless these Conditions provide otherwise.

[Chapter 64E-6, F.A.C.]

H. Sanitary Wastes Disposal of sanitary wastes from construction toilet facilities shall be in accordance with applicable regulations of the Department.

[Rule 62-6.0101, F.A.C.]

X. RIGHT OF ENTRY A. Upon presentation of credentials or other documents as may be required by law, the Licensee shall allow authorized representatives of the Department or other agencies with jurisdiction over a portion of the certified facility, any authorized off-site mitigation/compensation area or Associated facility:

1. At reasonable times, to enter upon the certified facility in order to monitor activities within their respective jurisdictions for purposes of assessing compliance with this certification; or

2. During business hours, to enter the Licensees premises in which records are required to be kept under this certification; and to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under this certification.

B. When requested by the Department, on its own behalf or on behalf of another agency with regulatory jurisdiction, the Licensee shall within 10 working days, or such longer period as may be mutually agreed upon by the Department and the Licensee, furnish any information required by law, which is needed to determine compliance with the certification.

[Rules 62-4.160(7)(a) and 62-4.160(15), F.A.C.]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 9

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS XI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. General If a situation arises in which mutual agreement cannot be reached between the Department and the Licensee, and/or, an agency with substantive regulatory jurisdiction over a matter, the Department may act as a facilitator in an attempt to resolve the issue. If the dispute is not resolved informally in this manner, Licensee may request one or more meetings in which both Licensee and the agency with substantive regulatory jurisdiction over the matter can participate and attempt to resolve the issue informally. If, after such meetings, a mutual agreement cannot be reached between the parties, then the matter shall be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for disposition in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 120, F.S. The Licensee or the Department may request DOAH to establish an expedited schedule for processing the dispute. Any filing with DOAH shall state with particularity the specific project and geographic location to which the dispute relates. Work unrelated to the specific project and in areas other than the location to which the dispute relates will not be affected by the dispute.

B. Modifications If written objections are filed regarding a requested modification, and the objections address only a portion of a requested modification, the Department shall issue a final order approving the portion of the modification to which no objections were filed, unless that portion of the requested modification is substantially related to or necessary to implement the portion to which written objections are filed.

C. Post-certification Submittals If it is determined, after assessment of a post-certification submittal, that compliance with the Conditions will not be achieved for a particular portion of a submittal, the Department may make a separate assessment of other portions of the submittal, unless those portions of the submittal are substantially related to or necessary to implement that portion for which it has been determined that compliance with the Conditions will not be achieved.

[Section 120.57, F.S.; Rule 62-17.211, F.A.C.]

XII. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this certification are severable, and if any provision of this certification or the application of any provision of this certification to any circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the certification or the application of such provision to other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

XIII. ENFORCEMENT A. The terms, conditions, requirements, limitations, and restrictions set forth in these Conditions are binding and enforceable pursuant to Sections 403.141, 403.161, 403.514, 403.727, and 403.859 through 403.861, F.S., as applicable. Any noncompliance by the Licensee with these Conditions constitutes a violation of Chapter 403, F.S., and is grounds for enforcement action, which may result in license termination, license revocation, or license revision. The Licensee is placed on notice that the Department may review this certification periodically and may initiate enforcement action for any violation of these Conditions.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 10

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS B. All records, notes, monitoring data, and other information relating to the construction or operation of the certified facility which are submitted to the Department may be used by the Department as evidence in any enforcement case involving the certified facility and arising under the Florida Statutes or Department rules, subject to the restrictions in Sections 403.111 and 403.73, F.S. During enforcement actions, the retention period for all records will be extended automatically unless otherwise stipulated by the Department. Such evidence shall only be used to the extent it is consistent with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and appropriate evidentiary rules.

C. The specific terms of the Fifth Supplemental Agreement and the Revised Plan, referenced in Section B. Condition X. Units 3 & 4 Additional Monitoring of these Conditions of Certification, shall remain enforceable by the SFWMD by the terms of the Fifth Supplemental Agreement.

[Sections 403.121, 403.131, 403.141, 403.151, 403.161, and 403.514, F.S.; Rules 62-4.160(1) and (9), F.A.C.]

XIV. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION This certification shall be final unless revised, revoked or suspended pursuant to law.

This certification may be suspended or revoked pursuant to Sections 403.512, F.S. This certification is valid only for the specific processes and operations identified in the SCA and approved in the final order of certification or indicated in the testimony and exhibits in support of certification or approved in a subsequent amendment or modification of the certification. Any unauthorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this approval may constitute grounds for revocation and enforcement action by the Department. Any enforcement action, including suspension and revocation, shall only affect the portion(s) of the certified facility that are the cause of such action, and other portions of the certified facility shall remain unaffected by such action.

[Sections 403.512, F.S.; Rule 62-4.160(2), F.A.C.]

XV. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE As provided in Sections 403.087(7) and 403.722(5), F.S., except as specifically provided in the final order of certification, a subsequent modification or amendment, or these Conditions, the issuance of this License does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. Neither does it authorize any injury to public or private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations. This License is not a waiver of or approval of any other Department license or permit that may be required for other aspects of the certified facility that are not addressed in this License. This license does not relieve the Licensee from liability for harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, or plant life, or public or private property caused by the construction or operation of the certified facility, or from penalties therefore.

[Rules 62-4.160(3) and (5), F.A.C.]

XVI. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY Except to the extent a variance, exception, exemption, or other relief is granted in a final order of certification, in a subsequent modification to these Conditions, or as otherwise provided under Chapter 403, F.S., this certification does not relieve the Licensee from civil or Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 11

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS criminal penalties for noncompliance with any Condition, applicable rules or regulations of the Department, or any other state statutes or regulations which may apply.

[Sections 403.141, 403.161, and 403.511, F.S.]

XVII. USE OF STATE LANDS A. Except as specifically provided in the final order of certification or these Conditions, the issuance of this License conveys no title to land or water, does not constitute State recognition or acknowledgment of title, and does not constitute authority for the use of submerged lands unless the necessary title or leasehold interests have been obtained from the State. Only the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund may express State opinion as to title.

B. If any portion of the certified facility is located on sovereign submerged lands, state-owned uplands, or within an aquatic preserve, then the Licensee must comply with the applicable portions of Chapters 18-2, 18-20, and 18-21, F.A.C., and Chapters 253 and 258, F.S.,

except as specifically provided in the final order of certification or these Conditions. If any portion of the certified facility is located on sovereign submerged lands, the Licensee must submit section F of Form 62-330.060(1), Application for Individual and Conceptual Approval Environmental Resource Permit (State 404 Program Permit) and Authorization to Use State-Owned Submerged Lands to the Department prior to construction. If any portion of the certified facility is located on state-owned uplands, the Licensee must submit an Upland Easement Application to the Department prior to construction.

C. If a portion of the certified facility is located on sovereign submerged lands or state-owned uplands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, pursuant to Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution, then the proposed activity on such lands requires a proprietary authorization. Under such circumstances, the proposed activity is not exempt from the need to obtain a proprietary authorization. Unless otherwise provided in the final order of certification or these Conditions, the Department has the responsibility to review and take action on requests for proprietary authorization in accordance with Rule 18-2.018 or 18-21.0051, F.A.C.

D. The Licensee is hereby advised that Florida law states: A person may not commence any excavation, construction, or other activity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, the title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund under this chapter, until the person has received the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use. Pursuant to Chapter 18-14, F.A.C., if such work is done without consent, or if a person otherwise damages state land or products of state land, the Board of Trustees may levy administrative fines of up to $10,000 per offense.

E. The terms, conditions, and provisions of any required lease or easement issued by the State shall be met. Any construction activity associated with the certified facility shall not commence on sovereign submerged lands or state-owned uplands, title to which is held by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, until all required lease or easement documents have been executed.

[Chapters 253 and 258, F.S.; Chapters 18-2, 18-14, 18-21,62-340, and Rules62-330.060(1) and 62-4.160(4), F.A.C.]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 12

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS XVIII. PROCEDURAL RIGHTS Except as specified in Chapter 403, F.S., or Chapter 62-17, F.A.C., no term or condition of certification shall be interpreted to preclude the post-certification exercise by any party of whatever procedural rights it may have under Chapter 120, F.S., including those related to rule-making proceedings.

[Sections 403.511(5)(c), F.S. and Chapter 62-17, F.A.C.]

XIX. AGENCY ADDRESSES FOR POST-CERTIFICATION SUBMITTALS AND NOTICES Where a Condition requires post-certification submittals and/or notices to be sent to a specific agency, the following agency addresses shall be used unless the Conditions specify otherwise or unless the Licensee and the Department are notified in writing of an agencys change in address for such submittals and notices:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Siting Coordination Office, MS 5500 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 SCO@dep.state.fl.us Florida Department of Environmental Protection Southeast District Office 3301 Gun Club Road MSC 7210-1 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Bureau of Community Planning and Growth 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission Conservation Planning Services 620 South Meridian Street, MS 5B5 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 ConservationPlanningServices@myfwc.com Florida Department of Transportation District Administration 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of General Counsel 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 13

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS South Florida Water Management District Office of General Counsel 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 For ROW submittals: rowpermits@sfwmd.gov Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Miami-Dade County Office of General Counsel 111 NW 1st Street Miami, Florida 33128

[Section 403.511, F.S.]

XX. PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION To ensure protection of public health, safety, and welfare, any construction, modification, or operation of an installation which may be a source of pollution, or of a public drinking water supply, shall be in accordance with sound professional engineering practices pursuant to Chapter 471, F.S.; and all final geological papers or documents involving the practice of the profession of geology shall be in accordance with sound professional geological practices pursuant to Chapter 492, F.S. Where required by Chapter 471 or 492, F.S., applicable portions of amendment requests, petitions for modifications, post certification submittals, and supporting documents which are submitted to the Department for public record shall be signed and sealed by the professional(s) who prepared or approved them.

[Rule 62-4.050, F.A.C.]

XX

I. PROCEDURE

S FOR POST-CERTIFICATION SUBMITTALS A. Purpose of Submittals Conditions which provide for the post-certification submittal of information to DEP or other agencies by the Licensee are for the purpose of facilitating the agencies monitoring of the effects arising from the location of the certified facility and the construction and maintenance of the certified facility. This monitoring is for DEP to assure, in consultation with other agencies with applicable regulatory jurisdiction, continued compliance with these Conditions, without further agency action. A submittal of information or determination of compliance pursuant to a post-certification submittal under this Condition does not provide a point of entry for a third party.

B. Filings All post-certification submittals of information by Licensee are to be filed with the agency or office that requires the submittal pursuant to these Conditions. The SCO shall be copied on all post-certification submittals in electronic .pdf format (unless other formats are Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 14

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS requested), via email to SCO@dep.state.fl.us. Each submittal shall clearly identify the Certified facility name, PA#, and the Condition number(s) (i.e.Section X, Condition XX.y.(z)) requiring the submittal. As required by Section 403.5113(2), F.S., each post-certification submittal will be reviewed by each agency with regulatory authority over the matters addressed in the submittal on an expedited and priority basis.

[Section 403.5113, F.S.; Rule 62-17.191(3), F.A.C.]

C. Completeness DEP shall review each post-certification submittal for completeness. This review may include consultation with the other agency(ies) receiving the post-certification submittal with regulatory jurisdiction over the matter addressed in the submittal. DEPs finding of completeness shall specify the area of the certified facility affected and shall not delay further processing of the post-certification submittal for non-affected areas.

If any portion of a post-certification submittal is found to be incomplete, the Licensee shall be so notified. Failure to issue such a notice within 30 days after filing of the submittal shall constitute a finding of completeness. Subsequent findings of incompleteness, if any, shall address only the newly filed information.

[Rule 62-17.191(1)(c)2., F.A.C.]

D. Interagency Meetings DEP may conduct an interagency meeting with other agencies that received a post-certification submittal. The purpose of such an interagency meeting shall be for the agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the matters addressed in the post-certification submittal to discuss whether compliance with these Conditions has been provided. Failure of DEP to conduct an interagency meeting or failure of any agency to attend an interagency meeting shall not be grounds for DEP to withhold a determination of compliance with these Conditions nor to delay the timeframes for review established by these Conditions. At DEPs request, a field inspection shall be conducted with the Licensee and the agency representative in conjunction with the interagency meeting.

E. Determination of Compliance DEP, or applicable regulatory agency in consultation with DEP, shall give written notification within 90 days, to the Licensee and the other agency(ies) to which the post-certification information was submitted of DEPs determination of whether there is demonstration of compliance with these Conditions. If it is determined that compliance with the Conditions has not been provided, the Licensee shall be notified with particularity of the deficiencies and possible corrective measures suggested. Failure to notify Licensee in writing within 90 days of receipt of a complete post-certification submittal shall constitute a determination of compliance. A post-certification compliance review may be the basis for initiating modifications to the relevant Condition or to other related Conditions.

F. Commencement of Construction If DEP does not object within the time period specified in paragraph E., above, Licensee may begin construction pursuant to the terms of these Conditions and the subsequently submitted construction details.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 15

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS G. Revisions to Design Previously Reviewed for Compliance If revisions to site-specific designs occur after submittal, the Licensee shall submit revised plans prior to construction for review in accordance with the post-certification process specified in this Condition.

[Sections 120.569, 373.413, 373.416, 403.511, F.S.; Rules 62-17.191 and 62-17.205, F.A.C.]

XXII. POST-CERTIFICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY

Within 90 days after certification, and within 90 days after any subsequent modification or certification, the Licensee shall provide the SCO a complete summary of those post-certification submittals that are identified in these Conditions when due-dates for the information required of the Licensee have been identified. A summary shall be provided as a separate document for each transmission line, if any. Such submittals shall include, but are not limited to, monitoring reports, management plans, wildlife surveys, etc. The summary shall be provided to the SCO, in a sortable spreadsheet, electronically, in the format shown below or equivalent. For subsequent modifications and certifications, a Post-Certification Submittal Requirements Summary shall be required only for new or altered post-certification requirements.

Condition Number Requirement and Due Date Name of Agency or Timeframe Agency Subunit to whom the submittal is required to be provided

[Section 403.5113, F.S.; Rule 62-17.191(3), F.A.C.]

XXIII. POST-CERTIFICATION AMENDMENTS If, subsequent to certification, the Licensee proposes any material change to the SCA and revisions or amendments thereto, as certified, the Licensee shall submit a written request for amendment and a description of the proposed change to the SCA to the Department. Within 30 days after the receipt of a complete request for an amendment, the Department shall determine whether the proposed change to the SCA requires a modification to the Conditions.

A. If the Department concludes that the change would not require a modification to the Conditions, the Department shall provide written notification of the approval of the proposed amendment to the Licensee, all agencies, and all other parties to the certification.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 16

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS B. If the Department concludes that the change would require a modification to the Conditions, the Department shall provide written notification to the Licensee that the proposed change to the SCA requires a request for modification pursuant to Section 403.516, F.S.

[Section 403.5113, F.S.]

XXIV. MODIFICATION OF CERTIFICATION A. Pursuant to Sections 403.516(1)(a), F.S., and Rule 62-17.211, F.A.C., the Siting Board hereby delegates the authority to the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection who further delegates to the Siting Office the authority to modify, after notice and receipt of no objection by a party to the certification within 45 days after notice by mail to the partys last address of record, and if no other person whose substantial interests will be affected by the modification objects in writing within 30 days of public notice.

B. The Department may modify Conditions, in accordance with Section 403.516(1)(b), F.S., which are inconsistent with the terms of any subsequent and separately issued DEP permits, permit amendments, permit modifications, or permit renewals under a federally delegated or federally approved permit program. Such modification may be made without further notice if the matter has been previously noticed under the requirements for any federally delegated or approved permit program.

C. The Secretary of the Department may modify any condition of this certification except those pertaining to a change in fuel.

D. The Secretary of the Department may modify any condition of this certification if the Secretary finds that an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires the issuance of an immediate final order temporarily modifying these Conditions of Certification.

If the Secretary elects to exercise this delegated authority, the Secretary shall prepare an immediate final order that recites with particularity the facts underlying the Secretary's finding of an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare. The immediate final order and the modification to the Conditions of Certification shall be effective only for so long as is necessary to address the immediate danger and shall be applicable or enjoinable from the date rendered.

E. In accordance with Section 403.516(1)(c), F.S., the Licensee may file a petition for modification with the Department, or the Department may initiate the modification upon its own initiative.

F. Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases, or process modifications which may result in new, different or increased discharge or emission of pollutants, change in fuel, or expansion in generating capacity must be reported by submission of an appropriate request for an amendment, modification, or certification.

G. In the event of a prolonged [thirty (30) days or more] equipment malfunction or shutdown of pollution control equipment, the Secretary of the Department may allow facility operation to resume and continue to take place under an immediate final order temporarily modifying these Conditions of Certification, provided that the Licensee demonstrates that such operation will be in compliance with all applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments, water quality standards and rules, solid waste rules, domestic wastewater rules and industrial wastewater rules. During such malfunction or shutdown, the operation of the facility shall comply with all other requirements of this certification and all applicable state and federal emission and effluent standards not affected by the malfunction or shutdown.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 17

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS H. Any anticipated facility change that results in a change to the Site Delineation Map, attached hereto as part of Attachment A, may be considered a modification, and must be accompanied by a map or aerial photograph showing the proposed new boundaries of the site.

Within 120 days after completion of construction of the approved facility change, the Licensee shall provide the information required by Section A. General Conditions, Condition I. Scope, paragraphs D, E, F, G, H, or I, as appropriate.

[Section 403.516, F.S.; Rule 62-17.211, F.A.C.]

XXV. COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY Pursuant to Sections 373.428 and 403.511, F.S., certification of the facility constitutes the States concurrence that the licensed activity or use is consistent with the federally approved program under the Florida Coastal Management Act.

[Sections 373.428, 380.23, and 403.511(7), F.S.]

XXVI. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION Pursuant to the Operating Agreement between the Department, Water Management Districts and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a written final order granting certification constitutes certification by the Department that the project activities comply with applicable state water quality standards.

[2012 Operating Agreement, Jacksonville District USACOE, DEP and Water Management Districts,Section II.A.1.(f)]

XXVII. TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATION A. This certification is transferable in whole or in part, upon Department approval, to an entity determined to be able to comply with these Conditions. A transfer of certification of all or part of the certified facility may be initiated by the Licensees filing of a Notice of Intent to Transfer Certification with the Departments SCO. The notice of intent shall: identify the intended new certification holder or Licensee; identify the current and the new entity responsible for compliance with the certification; and include a written agreement from the intended new Licensee/Transferee to abide by all Conditions, as well as, applicable laws and regulations.

Upon receiving a complete notice of intent, the transfer shall be approved by the Department unless the Department objects to the transfer on the grounds that the new Licensee will be unable to comply with the Conditions, specifies in writing its reasons for its objections, and gives notice and an opportunity to petition for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S.

Upon approval, the Department will initiate a modification to the Conditions to reflect the change in ownership in accordance with Rule 62-17.211, F.A.C.

B. In the event of the dissolution of the Licensee, the Department may transfer certification to successor entities which are determined to be competent to construct, operate, and maintain the certified facility in accordance with the Conditions and which are proper applicants as defined by the PPSA. Upon determination that such a successor entity complies with the requirements for transfer of certification, the Department will initiate a modification to the Conditions to reflect the change in ownership in accordance with Rule 62-17.211, F.A.C.

[Chapter 120, F.S.; Rule 62-17.211, F.A.C.]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 18

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS XXVIII. LABORATORIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE Chemical, physical, biological, microbiological, and toxicological data collected as a requirement of these Conditions must be reliable and collected and analyzed by scientifically sound procedures. Unless otherwise specified in these Conditions, the Licensee shall adhere to the minimum field and laboratory quality assurance, methodological and reporting requirements of the Department as set forth in Chapter 62-160, F.A.C.

[Chapter 62-160, F.A.C.]

XXIX. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES A. General

1. Submittals for Construction Activities

a. Prior to the commencement of construction of new facilities and/or new Associated facilities the Licensee shall provide to the DEP SED District for review, all information necessary for a complete Application for Individual and Conceptual Approval Environmental Resource Permit and Authorization to Use State-Owned Lands (ERP), DEP Form 62-330.060(1), F.A.C., or other applicable ERP authorization form. A copy of the submittal shall also be provided to the SCO.

This form may: a) be submitted concurrently with a SCA; b) be submitted as part of an amendment request or a petition for modification; or c) be submitted as a post-certification submittal following approval of a Project through certification, modification, or amendment. Such ERP submittals, once received, shall be reviewed in accordance with the non-procedural standards and criteria for issuance of an ERP, including all the provisions related to reduction and elimination of impacts, conditions for issuance, additional conditions for issuance, and mitigation contained in Chapter 62-330, F.A.C., as applicable, unless otherwise stated in these Conditions. While the information is provided for review via submittal of the ERP form, consistent with Section 403.511, F.S., a separate ERP is not required for certified facilities, and therefore, a separate ERP will not be issued.

Those forms submitted as part of a SCA, an amendment, or modification, shall be processed concurrently with the respective SCA, amendment, or modification, in compliance with the applicable PPSA procedures. Those forms submitted as a post-certification submittal (after certification, modification, or amendment and prior to construction) shall be processed in accordance with Section A. General Conditions, Condition XXI., Procedures for Post-Certification Submittals. Post-certification submittal information may be submitted for discrete portions of the certified facilities for a determination of compliance with these Conditions.

No construction shall commence on a project feature, or in a particular segment of a linear facility, until the Department has determined that there is a demonstration of compliance with these Conditions. For post-certification submittal reviews, the Departments determination is governed by Section A, General Conditions, Condition XXI, Procedures for Post-Certification Submittals.

b. Concurrent with submittal of the DEP form required in subparagraph A.1.a., above, the Licensee shall submit, as applicable, a survey of wetland and surface water areas as delineated in accordance with Chapter 62-340, F.A.C., and verified by Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 19

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS appropriate agency staff for Department compliance review. Available DEP-approved wetland and surface water delineations within the boundaries of a certified site or a portion thereof may be used and reproduced for this delineation submittal and verification. Formal DEP-approved wetland and surface water delineations are valid only for a period of five years.

[Section 373.416, F.S.; Chapters62-330 and 62-340, F.A.C.]

2. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project (including any access roads and structures constructed within wetlands and other surface waters, and/or Associated facilities) shall satisfy any applicable non-procedural requirements in the Department rules.

[Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S.]

3. Any delineation of the extent of a wetland or other surface water submitted as part of the DEP ERP Application Form required by subparagraph A.1.a., above, including plans or other supporting documentation, shall not be considered binding on the Department unless a specific condition of this certification or a formal wetlands jurisdictional determination under Section 373.421(2), F.S., provides otherwise.

[Sections 373.421, 403.504, F.S.]

B. Surface Water Management Systems

1. Information regarding surface water management systems (SWMS) will be reviewed for consistency with the applicable non-procedural requirements under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., following submittal of Form 62-330.060(1), F.A.C., to the DEP District.

2. All construction, operation, and maintenance of the SWMS(s) for the certified facilities shall be as set forth in the plans, specifications, and performance criteria contained in the SCA and other materials presented during the certification proceeding, post-certification submittals, and as otherwise approved. If specific requirements are necessary for construction, operation, and/or maintenance of an approved SWMS, those requirements shall be incorporated into a SWMS Operation and Maintenance Requirements for that system and included in Attachment B (Surface Water Management System Requirements). Any alteration or modification to the SWMS Plan or the SWMS as certified requires prior approval from the Department.

3. To allow for stabilization of all disturbed areas, prior to construction, during construction of the SWMS, and for a period of time after construction of the SWMS, the Licensee shall implement and maintain erosion and sediment control best management practices, such as silt fences, erosion control blankets, mulch, sediment traps, polyacrylamide (PAM),

temporary grass seed, permanent sod, and floating turbidity screens to retain sediment on-site and to prevent violations of state water quality standards. These devices shall be installed, used, and maintained at all locations where the possibility exists of transferring suspended solids into the receiving waterbody due to the licensed work, and shall remain in place at all locations until construction in that location is completed and soils are permanently stabilized. All best management practices shall be in accordance with the guidelines and specifications described in the State of Florida Erosion and Sediment Control Designer and Reviewer Manual (Florida Department of Transportation and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, by HydroDynamics Incorporated in cooperation with Stormwater Management Academy, June 2007) unless a project-specific erosion and sediment control plan is approved as part of this License. If project-specific Conditions require additional measures during any phase of Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 20

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS construction or operation to prevent erosion or control sediments beyond those specified in the approved erosion and sediment control plan, the Licensee shall implement additional best management practices as necessary, in accordance with the guidelines and specifications in the State of Florida Erosion and Sediment Control Designer and Reviewer Manual. The Licensee shall correct any erosion or shoaling that causes adverse impacts to the water resources as soon as feasible. Once project construction is complete in an area, including the re-stabilization of all side slopes, embankments, and other disturbed areas, and before conversion to the operation and maintenance phase of the SWMS, all silt screens and fences, temporary baffles, and other materials that are no longer required for erosion and sediment control shall be removed.

4. The Licensee shall complete construction of all aspects of the SWMS described in the ERP Application Form, submitted as part of a post-certification submittal, amendment, modification, or SCA including water quality treatment features, and discharge control facilities prior to use of the portion of the certified facility being served by the SWMS.

5. At least 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> prior to beginning the authorized activities, the Licensee shall submit to the DEP District a fully executed Form 62-330.350(1), Construction Commencement Notice, (October 1, 2013),

(http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-02505), indicating the expected start and completion dates. A copy of this form may be obtained from the Department, as described in subsection 62-330.010(5), F.A.C., and shall be submitted electronically. However, for activities involving more than one acre of construction that also require a NPDES stormwater construction general permit, submittal of the Notice of Intent to Use Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Large and Small Construction Activities, DEP Form 62-621.300(4)(b), shall also serve as notice of commencement of construction and, in such a case, submittal of Form 62-330.350(1) is not required.

6. Each phase or independent portion of the approved system must be completed in accordance with the submitted DEP ERP Application Form prior to the operation of the portion of the certified facility being served by that portion or phase of the system.

7. Within 30 days, or such other date as agreed to by DEP and the Licensee, after completion of construction of any new portions of the SWMS, the Licensee shall submit to the DEP District, and copy the SCO, a written statement of completion and certification by a registered professional engineer (P.E.), or other appropriate registered professional, as authorized by law, utilizing the required As-Built Certification and Request for Conversion to Operation Phase (DEP Form 62-330.310(1), F.A.C.). Additionally, if deviations from the approved drawings are discovered, the As-Built Certification must be accompanied by a copy of the approved drawings with deviations noted.

8. Any substantial deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or Conditions, may constitute grounds for revocation or enforcement action by the Department.

9. The operation phase of any new SWMS approved by the Department shall not become effective until the Licensee has complied with the requirements of the conditions herein, the Department determines the system to be in compliance with the approved plans, and the entity approved by the Department accepts responsibility for operation and maintenance of the system.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 21

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS

10. The DEP District must be notified in advance of any proposed construction dewatering. If the dewatering activity is likely to result in off-site discharge or sediment transport into wetlands or surface waters, a written dewatering plan must be submitted to and approved by the Department prior to the dewatering event.

[Section 373.414, F.S.; Chapters62-302, 62-330, and Rule 62-4.242, F.A.C.]

C. Wetland and Other Surface Water Impacts

1. All certified facilities shall be constructed in a manner which will eliminate or reduce adverse impacts to on-site and/or adjacent wetlands or other surface waters to the extent practicable or otherwise comply with the Departments substantive criteria for elimination or reduction of such impacts. When impacts to wetlands will occur as a result of a future amendment, modification, or certification, and cannot be practicably eliminated or reduced, the Licensee may propose, and the Department or Board shall consider, mitigation to offset otherwise such impacts under the ERP review process pursuant to subparagraph A.1.,

above.

2. Proposed mitigation requirements/plans submitted with the DEP ERP Application forms required in subparagraph A.1.a., above, or submitted as part of an amendment, modification, or certification, and that are deemed acceptable by DEP, shall include applicable construction conditions, success criteria, monitoring plans, and remedial actions (if applicable),

and shall be incorporated into these Conditions as Attachment C (Wetland Mitigation Requirements/Plans).

[Sections 373.413, 373.414, 373.4145, 403.511, and 403.814(6), F.S.; Chapters62-312, 62-330,62-340, 62-342, and 62-345, F.A.C.]

XXX. THIRD PARTY IMPACTS The Licensee is responsible for maintaining compliance with these Conditions even when third party activities authorized by the Licensee occur in or on the certified site.

[Sections 403.506(1), F.S.]

XXXI. FACILITY OPERATION The Licensee shall properly operate and maintain the certified facility and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) that are installed and used by the Licensee to achieve compliance with these Conditions, as required by the final order of certification, these Conditions, or a post-certification amendment or modification. This provision includes the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities or similar systems when necessary to achieve compliance with the final order of certification, these Conditions, or a post-certification amendment or modification. Further, the Licensee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact resulting from noncompliance with any limitation specified in this certification, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying event.

[Rule 62-4.160(6), F.A.C.]

XXXII. RECORDS MAINTAINED AT THE FACILITY A. These Conditions or a copy thereof shall be kept at the site.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 22

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS B. The Licensee shall hold at the site, or other location designated by these Conditions, records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation required by these Conditions, copies of all reports required by these Conditions, and records of all data used to complete the SCA for this approval. These materials shall be retained at least 3 years from the date of the sample, measurement, report, or application unless otherwise specified by Department rule.

C. Records of monitoring information shall include:

1. the date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;

2. the person responsible for performing the sampling or measurements;

3. the dates analyses were performed;

4. the person responsible for performing the analyses;

5. the analytical techniques or methods used; and

6. the results of such analyses.

[Rules 62-4.160(12) and (14)(b), F.A.C.]

XXXIII. WATER DISCHARGES A. Except as otherwise authorized by a permit issued by the Department under a federally approved or delegated program or to the extent a variance, exception, exemption or other relief is granted or authorized by these Conditions, the Licensee shall not discharge to surface or ground waters of the State, wastes in concentrations, which, alone or in combinations with other substances or components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal), are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to human beings (unless specific criteria are established for such components in Rule 62-520.400, F.A.C.) or are acutely toxic to indigenous species of significance to the aquatic community within surface waters affected by the ground water at the point of contact with surface waters.

B. Except as otherwise authorized by a permit issued by the Department under a federally approved or delegated program or to the extent a variance, exception, exemption, or other relief is granted or authorized by these Conditions, all discharges and activities must be conducted so as to not cause a violation of the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-4,62-302, 62-520,62-550, and 62-620, F.A.C., including the provisions of Rules 62-4.243, 62-4.244, and 62-4.246, F.A.C., the antidegradation provisions of Rules 62-4.242(1)(a), (1)(b), and 62-302.300, F.A.C., and any special standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in Rules 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C.

C. Except as otherwise authorized by a permit issued by the Department under a federally approved or delegated program or to the extent a variance, exception, exemption, or other relief is granted or authorized by these Conditions, all dewatering discharges must be in compliance with Rule 62-621.300, F.A.C.

[Chapters 62-4,62-302, 62-520,62-550, 62-620, and 62-621, F.A.C.]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 23

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS XXXIV. SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE A. Solid Waste The Licensee shall comply with all applicable non-procedural provisions of Chapter 62-701, F.A.C., for any solid waste generated within the certified facility during construction, operation, maintenance, and closure.

[Chapter 62-701, F.A.C.]

B. Hazardous Waste, Used Oil, Petroleum Contact Water, and Spent Mercury The Licensee shall comply with all applicable non-procedural provisions of Chapter 62-730, F.A.C., for any hazardous waste generated within the certified facility. An EPA identification number must be obtained before beginning hazardous waste activities unless the facility is a Very Small Quantity Generator (VSQG). VSQGs generate no more than 100 kg (220 lbs) of hazardous waste in any month.

The Licensee shall comply with all applicable non-procedural provisions of Chapter 62-710, F.A.C., for any used oil and used oil filters generated within the certified facility.

The Licensee shall comply with all applicable non-procedural provisions of Chapter 62-737, F.A.C., for any spent mercury-containing lamps and devices generated within the certified facility.

The Licensee shall comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 62-740, F.A.C., for any petroleum contact water located within the certified facility.

[Chapters62-710, 62-730,62-737, and 62-740, F.A.C.]

C. Hazardous Substance Release Notification

1. Any owner or operator of a facility who has knowledge of any release of a hazardous substance from a certified facility in a quantity equal to or exceeding the reportable quantity in any 24-hour period shall notify the Department by calling the State Watch Office, (800) 320-0519, as soon as possible, but not later than one working day of discovery of the release.

2. Any owner or operator of a facility who has knowledge of any release of a hazardous substance from a certified facility in a quantity equal to or exceeding the reportable quantity in any 24-hour period shall notify the public by submitting a Public Notice of Pollution, https://prodenv.dep.state.fl.us/DepPNP/user/pnpRequest, as soon as possible, but not later than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after discovery of the release.

3. Releases of mixtures and solutions are subject to these notification requirements only where a component hazardous substance of the mixture or solution is released in a quantity equal to or greater than its reportable quantity.

4. Notification of the release of a reportable quantity of solid particles of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, or zinc is not required if the mean diameter of the particles released is larger than 100 micrometers (0.004 inches).

[Chapter 62-150, F.A.C.]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 24

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS D. Contaminated Site Cleanup The Licensee shall comply with all applicable non-procedural provisions of Chapter 62-780, F.A.C., for any violations of relevant provisions of Chapters 376 or 403, F.S.,

that result in legal responsibility for site rehabilitation pursuant to those chapters. This responsibility for site rehabilitation does not affect any activity or discharge permitted or exempted pursuant to Chapters 376 or 403, F.S., or rules promulgated pursuant to Chapters 376 or 403, F.S.

[Chapter 62-780, F.A.C.]

XXXVI. STORAGE TANK SYSTEMS Registration, construction, installation, operation, maintenance, repair, closure, and disposal of storage tank systems within a certified site that store regulated substances shall be in accordance with Chapters62-761 and 62-762, F.A.C., in order to minimize the occurrence and environmental risks of releases and discharges. Mineral acid storage tank systems are subject only to Rule 62-762.891, F.A.C. Compression vessels and aboveground hazardous substance storage tank systems with individual capacities greater than 110 gallons are only subject to Rule 62-762.401, F.A.C.

A. Incident Notification Requirements.

Notification of any condition or situation indicating that a release or discharge of a regulated substance may have occurred from a storage tank system or system component shall be made to the County in writing or electronic format on either Form 62-761.900 (6) or Form 62-762.901(6), whichever is applicable, Incident Notification Form (INF), within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of discovery or before the close of the Countys next business day. However, an INF is not required to be submitted if, within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or discovery, the investigation of the incident confirms that a discharge did not occur.

B. Discharge Reporting Requirements Notification of the discovery of a discharge of a regulated substance shall be made to the County in writing or electronic format on either Form 62-761.900(1) or Form 62-762.901(1), whichever is applicable, Discharge Report Form (DRF) within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the discovery or before the close of the Countys next business day, unless the discovery is a non-petroleum, de minimis discharge referenced in Rule 62-780.550, F.A.C.; the discharge was previously reported to the appropriate County or the Department on a DRF; or the discovery is a petroleum or petroleum product de minimis discharge referenced in Rule 62-780.560(1), F.A.C.

A de minimis discharge is exempt from the notification requirements as long as discharge is removed and properly treated or properly disposed, or otherwise remediated pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 62-780, F.A.C.

C. Discharge Cleanup If a discharge of a regulated substance occurs at the certified facility, actions shall be taken immediately to contain, remove, and abate the discharge under all applicable Department rules. The Licensee is advised that other federal, state, or local requirements may apply to these activities. If the contamination present is subject to the provisions of Chapter 62-780, F.A.C., corrective action, including free product recovery, shall be performed in accordance with that Chapter.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 25

SECTION A: GENERAL CONDITIONS D. Out of Service and Closure Requirements Storage tank systems shall be taken out-of-service and/or closed as necessary in accordance with Rules62-761.800,62-762.801, and 62-762.802, F.A.C., as applicable.

[Chapters62-761, 62-762, and 62-780, F.A.C.]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 26

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SECTION B. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A. Radiological - Specific to Units 3 & 4

1. Decommissioning Upon application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for authority to decommission the plant, the applicant shall provide the Department a copy of the plan submitted to NRC for radioactive materials removal and/or containment for the site. Should the Department's review of the written plan reveal deficiencies, the Department shall bring such deficiencies to the attention of the applicant and the NRC and maintains the right to initiate a request, consistent with NRC procedural requirements that remedial action be taken to correct the deficiencies.

2. Radiological Release Limitations The recommendation in the Power Plant Site Certification Analysis that certification be issued is based in part upon the fact that in order to obtain a construction permit and operating license from NRC, the applicant must comply with all applicable regulations, requirements, and standards of the NRC which limit the release of radioactive materials in solid waste, liquid or gaseous effluents to the environment. The above NRC regulations, requirements and standards include the following:

a. Standards for Protection Against Radiation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rules and Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as presently in effect or hereafter amended.

b. Limitations and conditions for the controlled release of radioactive materials in solid, liquid and gaseous effluents contained in the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program required by Title 10, 10 CFR 50, Appendix I as presently in effect or hereafter amended.

The Department has the statutory duty to insure that the location and operation of Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4 will produce minimal adverse effects on human health, the environment, the ecology and the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of State waters and their aquatic life. (Fla. Stat. Section 403.502.) The Department has determined that the construction and operation of Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4 must comply with the above radiological release limitations in order to minimize adverse effects on human health and the environment. This certification is conditioned upon full compliance by the applicant with the applicable above regulations, requirements and standards.

The NRC has the duty and responsibility imposed by statute, to enforce compliance by the applicant with NRC standards and technical specifications, to assure that the construction and operation of Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4 will be in accord with the common defense and security and will provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public. See Section 103(d) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2133(d) (1970); accord.

42 U.S.C. section 2332(a) (1970) including any revisions.

However, should the Department determine that the NRC has failed to discharge its duty and responsibility, it may bring any such deficiencies to the attention of the applicant and the NRC, and maintains the right to initiate a request, consistent with NRC Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 27

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS procedural requirements, that appropriate enforcement action be taken to correct the deficiencies.

Should such appropriate enforcement action not be forthcoming, and the Department determines that such enforcement action is necessary to insure that adverse effects on human health and the environment by continued operation of Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4 are minimized, the Department reserves the right to take appropriate State enforcement action pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, against the applicant for violation of any of the above radiological release limitations on the grounds that the violation of such limitations constitutes a violation of this express condition of certification.

3. Reservation of Legal Rights The Department recognizes that the NRC has exclusive authority in certain areas related to the construction and operation of Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4. These conditions of certification do not limit, expand or supersede any federal requirement or restriction under federal law, regulation, or regulatory approval or license. Compliance with the conditions herein does not constitute a waiver of the applicants responsibility to comply with all applicable NRC requirements. Applicant's acceptance of these radiological conditions of certification does not, in and of itself, constitute a waiver by Applicant of any claim that any such radiological conditions are invalid under the doctrine of federal preemption or otherwise by law.

4. Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report Upon submittal to the NRC, FPL shall provide a copy of the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 & 4 to the Departments Siting Coordination Office.

5. NRC Operating Licenses The Licensee shall notify the Departments Siting Coordination Office of any amendments, modifications, or renewals of NRC-issued Operating Licenses.

B. CWRC Solid Waste

1. Any solid waste encountered during construction of the reclaimed waterline for the CWRC shall be disposed of at a permitted solid waste landfill.

2. If waste or the liner systems for the closed South Dade Landfill are encountered during construction of the reclaimed waterline, the waste shall be disposed of at a permitted solid waste landfill, and the liner system shall be repaired to minimize infiltration.

[Chapter 62-701, F.A.C.]

C. CWRC HDD Requirements

1. Return fluid from Horizontally Directional Drilling (HDD) bores shall not be discharged into adjacent surface waters and/or wetlands, and all severed materials shall be temporarily placed within the areas authorized to be impacted, prior to removal from the site.

The spoil and all severed materials shall be contained to prevent the escape of severed materials and associated effluent into adjacent storm drains, surface waters, and/or wetlands not authorized to be impacted. Where practicable, containment pits and staging areas shall be located on uplands. Construction personnel shall maintain daily logs (including a depiction of the area inspected) outlining all bore route inspections conducted during construction.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 28

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

2. There shall be no storage or stockpiling of tools and materials (i.e.,

lumber, pilings, debris), within wetlands or other surface waters that are not authorized to be impacted.

3. To provide an additional level of resource protection, the volume of the bentonite in the borehole, drilling mud consistency, drilling mud pressures, and return flows shall be monitored at all times during directional drilling operation. During drilling activities, daily monitoring logs shall be kept and indicate if an unanticipated or unexpected change in the bentonite borehole volume, drill mud pressures, drill mud consistency, and/or return flow volume occur during drilling activities. The monitoring logs shall be submitted quarterly to the FDEP SED. Should there be an indication of an inadvertent release, the following measures will be taken:

a. Immediately conduct a visual inspection of both terrestrial and subaqueous portions of the HDD corridor. If a frac-out is detected, notify the Southeast District Compliance Project Manager at SED_Compliance@FloridaDEP.gov, or by phone (561) 681-6600, within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of detection.

b. Should the release of drilling materials occur, the appropriate actions shall take place in strict accordance with the attached HDD Contingency Plan (aka Frac-Out Monitoring & Emergency Management Plan), hereby incorporated as Attachment D. Any violation of Attachment D is considered a violation of the Conditions of Certification.

4. In order to minimize the possibility of a bentonite release during punch out, the site project manager shall consider the use of water in place of bentonite during the last 30 to 50 feet of the directional bore. If practicable, the HDD operator shall stop the flow of recirculated bentonite and the borehole shall be flushed with water to remove the bentonite. Once the drill string is clear of bentonite, drilling will continue using only water as the boring medium.

The monitoring logs described in Section B. Condition I. Department of Environmental Protection, paragraph C.3 submitted to the Department will discuss if water was used during the final stages of drilling and if not, the reasons why it wasnt feasible.

5. Additives to the bentonite drilling muds shall include only NSF/ANSI Standard 60 Certified materials, all other additives will require the Departments prior approval.

If additional additives are needed, a post-certification submittal will be required. Safety Data Sheets of those additional proposed additives for HDD boring will be required to evaluate the post-certification submittal.

6. A fully enclosed truck shall remain onsite for frac-out assistance as well as to remove all drilling fluids prior to backfilling the containment pits. If night-time drilling and/or boring activities are performed beneath wetlands or surface waters, the permittee and/or contractor shall provide evidence to the Department that the contracted construction personnel is equipped with the best available lighting to detect a frac-out during low light conditions, which shall be utilized when tracing the HDD at night. Prior to night-time drilling and/or boring activities, the permittee and/or contractor shall contact the Department a minimum of 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> prior to commencement of drilling.

7. Within 60 days of construction completion Licensee shall restore all areas of temporary wetland impact associated with the pipeline installation to grade with native wetland topsoil.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 29

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

[Chapter 62-330, F.A.C and Petition to Modify (G) from FPL dated 7/29/2021]

D. Screening

1. The Licensee shall maintain existing screening of the site to the extent feasible through the use of acceptable structures, vegetated earthen walls, or existing or planted vegetation.

2. The Licensee shall develop the site so as to retain the buffer of natural vegetation as described in the Unit 5 application.

[Original certification 2/8/2005]

II. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A. Access Management to the State Highway System:

Any access to the State Highway System will be subject to the requirements of Chapters 14-96, State Highway System Connection Permits, and 14-97, Access Management Classification System and Standards, F.A.C.

B. Overweight or Overdimensional Loads:

Operation of overweight or overdimensional loads by the applicant on State transportation facilities during construction and operation of the utility facility will be subject to safety and permitting requirements of Chapter 316, F.S., and Chapter 14-26, Safety Regulations and Permit Fees for Overweight and Overdimensional Vehicles, F.A.C.

C. Use of State of Florida Right of Way or Transportation Facilities:

All usage and crossing of State of Florida right of way or transportation facilities will be subject to Chapter 14-46, Utilities Installation or Adjustment, F.A.C.; Florida Department of Transportations Utility Accommodation Manual (Document 710-020-001); Design Standards for Design, Construction, Maintenance and Utility Operation on the State Highway System; Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction; and pertinent sections of the Florida Department of Transportations Project Development and Environmental Manual. U.S. 1 has been identified as Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) and Strategic Intermodal Systems (SIS) facilities.

D. Standards:

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Florida Department of Transportations Design Standards for Design, Construction, Maintenance and Utility Operation on the State Highway System; Florida Department of Transportations Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction; Florida Department of Transportation's Utility Accommodation Manual; and pertinent sections of the Department of Transportations Project Development and Environmental Manual will be adhered to in all circumstances involving the State Highway System and other transportation facilities.

E. Drainage:

Any drainage onto State of Florida right of way and transportation facilities will be subject to the requirements of Chapter 14-86, Drainage Connections, F.A.C., including the attainment of any permit required thereby.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 30

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS F. Use of Air Space:

Any newly proposed structure or alteration of an existing structure will be subject to the requirements of Chapter 333, F.S., and Rule 14-60.009, Airspace Protection, F.A.C.

Additionally, notification to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required prior to beginning construction, if the structure exceeds notification requirements of 14 CFR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Subpart B, Notice of Construction or Alteration.

Notification will be provided to FAA Southern Region Headquarters using FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration in accordance with instructions therein. A subsequent Determination by the FAA stating that the structure exceeds any federal obstruction standard of 14 CFR Part 77, Subpart C for any structure that is located within a 10-nautical-mile radius of the geographical center of a public-use airport or military airfield in Florida will be required to submit information for an Airspace Obstruction Permit from the Florida Department of Transportation or variance from local government depending on the entity with jurisdictional authority over the site of the proposed structure. The FAA Determination regarding the structure serves only as a review of its impact on federal airspace and is not an authorization to proceed with any construction. However, FAA recommendations for marking and/or lighting of the proposed structure are made mandatory by Florida law. For a site under Florida Department of Transportation jurisdiction, application will be made by submitting Florida Department Transportation Form 725-040-11, Airspace Obstruction Permit Application, in accordance with the instructions therein.

G. Level of Service on State Roadway Facilities:

All traffic impacts to State roadway facilities on the FIHS or the SIS, or funded by Section 339.2819, F.S., will be subject to the requirements of the level of service standards adopted by local governments pursuant to Chapter 14-94, Statewide Minimum Level of Service Standards, F.A.C., in accordance with Section 163.3180(10), F.S. All traffic impacts to State roadway facilities not on the FIHS, the SIS, or funded by Section 339.2819, F.S., will be subject to adequate level of service standards established by the local governments.

H. Best Management Practices Traffic control during facility construction and maintenance will be subject to the standards contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Chapter 14-94, Statewide Minimum Level of Service Standards, F.A.C.; Florida Department of Transportations Design Standards for Design, Construction, Maintenance and Utility Operation on the State Highway; Florida Department of Transportations Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction; and Florida Department of Transportations Utility Accommodation Manual, whichever is more stringent.

It is recommended that the applicant encourage transportation demand management techniques by doing the following:

1. Placing a bulletin board on site for car-pooling advertisements.

2. Requiring that heavy construction vehicles remain onsite for the duration of construction to the extent practicable.

If the applicant uses contractors for the delivery of any overweight or overdimensional loads to the site during construction, the applicant should ensure that its contractors adhere to the necessary standards and receive the necessary permits required under Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 31

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Chapter 316, F.S., and Chapter 14-26, Safety Regulations and Permit Fees for Overweight and Overdimensional Vehicles, F.A.C.

I. Railroad Spur Any newly proposed railroad crossing must comply with the criteria established in Chapter 14-57, F.A.C. The following criteria must be considered in opening a new public highway-rail grade crossing on any state, county, or city roadway:

1. Safety

2. Necessity for rail and vehicle traffic.

3. Alternate routes.

4. Effect on rail operations and expenses.

5. Closure of one or more public railroad-grade crossings to offset opening a new crossing.

6. Design of the grade crossing and road approaches.

7. Presence of multiple tracks and their effect upon railroad and highway operations.

The installation of a new public highway-rail grade crossing must have as a minimum roadside flashing lights and gates on all roadway approaches to the crossing. The installation of the crossing surface and signals must be in accordance with current Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Federal Railroad Administration Rules and Regulations, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Policy, and the Departments Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction, and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (Floridas Green Book).

Areas of concern to be considered in determining the rail crossing location are as follows:

1. Roads crossing the tracks at a skewed angle or where the track is curved or super-elevated;

2. Impaired sight distance for motorists and rail engineers;

3. Highway intersections within 75 feet of the crossing which create a greater potential for accidents and create minimal vehicle storage distance;

4. Crossings that are blocked for long periods of time;

5. Switching movements or turnouts;

6. Different elevations of tracks.

[Chapters 316 and 333 and Sections 163.3180 and 339.2819, F.S.; Chapters 14-26, 14-46, 14-57, 14-60, 14-86, 14-94, 14-96 and 14-97, F.A.C.]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 32

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS III. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT A. General

1. If this Certification is transferred, pursuant to Section A. Condition XXVII. Transfer of Certification, from the Licensee to another party, the Licensee from whom the Certification is transferred shall remain liable for corrective actions that may be required as a result of any violations that occurred prior to the transfer.

2. This Certification is based in part on the Licensee's submitted information to the SFWMD which reasonably demonstrates that harm to the site water resources will not be caused by the authorized activities. The plans, drawings and design specifications submitted by the Licensee shall be considered the minimum standards for compliance with Section B.

Condition X. Units 3 & 4 Additional Monitoring, paragraph C. Cooling Canal System Floridan Production Well Monitoring.

3. This project must be constructed, operated and maintained in compliance with and meet all non-procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 373, F.S., and Chapters 40E-2 (Consumptive Use), 40E-3 (Water Wells), 40E-6 (Works or Lands of the District), 40E-20 (General Water Use Permits), and 40E-21 (Water Shortage Plan) F.A.C.

4. It is the responsibility of the Licensee to ensure that harm to the water resources does not occur during the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project.

5. The Licensee shall hold and save the SFWMD harmless from any and all damages, claims, or liabilities which may arise by reason of the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, abandonment and/or use of any system authorized by this Certification, to the extent allowed under Florida law.

6. The Licensee shall be responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of all facilities installed for the proposed project.

7. SFWMD representatives shall be allowed reasonable escorted access to the power plant site, the water withdrawal facilities and any associated facilities to inspect and observe any activities associated with the construction of the proposed project and/or the operation and/or maintenance of the on-site wells in order to determine compliance with these Conditions of Certification. The Licensee shall not refuse entry or access to any SFWMD representative who, upon reasonable notice, requests entry for the purpose of the above noted inspection and presents appropriate credentials.

8. Information submitted to the SFWMD subsequent to Certification, in compliance with these Conditions of Certification, shall be for the purpose of the SFWMD determining the Licensee's compliance with Section B. Conditions III. South Florida Water Management District and X. Units 3 & 4 Additional Monitoring, as well as the non-procedural criteria contained in Chapters 40E-2, 40E-3, 40E-6 (Works or Lands of the District), 40E-20 (General Water Use Permits), and 40E-21 (Water Shortage Plan), F.A.C., as applicable, prior to the commencement of the subject construction, operation and/or maintenance activity covered by this Certification.

9. The SFWMD may take any and all lawful actions that are necessary to enforce any condition of this Certification based on the authorizing statutes under Chapters 373 Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 33

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS and 120, F.S., and rules of the SFWMD. Prior to initiating such action, the SFWMD shall notify the Siting Coordination Office of DEP of the proposed action.

10. At least ninety (90) days prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the project, the Licensee shall submit to SFWMD staff, for a completeness and sufficiency review under the post-certification review process as outlined in Section A.

Condition XXI. Procedures for Post-Certification Submittals, any pertinent additional information required under conditions Section B. Condition III. South Florida Water Management District for that portion of project. If the information is not complete or sufficient, the SFWMD shall identify what items remain to be addressed. If SFWMD staff does not issue a written request for additional information within thirty (30) days, the information shall be presumed to be complete and sufficient.

11. Within sixty (60) days of the determination by SFWMD staff that any additional information is complete and sufficient, the SFWMD shall determine and notify the Licensee in writing, as outlined in Section A. Condition XXI. Procedures for Post-Certification Submittals, whether the proposed activities conform to SFWMD rules, as required by Chapters 40E-2, 40E-3, 40E-6 (Works or Lands of the District), 40E-20 (General Water Use Permits) and 40E-21 (Water Shortage Plan), F.A.C., and these Conditions of Certification. If the information is not complete or sufficient, the SFWMD shall identify what items remain to be addressed. No construction activities shall begin until the SFWMD has notified the Licensee in writing that the activities are in compliance with the applicable SFWMD criteria or failed to notify the Licensee in writing within sixty (60) days of finding the information to be complete and sufficient.

12. The Licensee shall submit any proposed revisions to the site-specific design authorizations specified in this Certification to the SFWMD for review and approval prior to implementation. The submittal shall include all the information necessary to support the proposed request, including detailed drawings, calculations and/or any other applicable data.

Such requests may be included as part of an appropriate additional information submittal required by this Certification, provided they are clearly identified as a requested amendment or modification to the previously authorized design B. Water Use Authorizations

1. In the event of a declared water shortage, the Licensee must comply with any water withdrawal reductions ordered by the SFWMD in accordance with the Water Shortage Plan, Chapter 40E-21, F.A.C.

2. The Licensee shall mitigate interference with existing legal uses that were caused in whole or in part by the Licensees withdrawals, consistent with the approved mitigation plan. As necessary to offset the interference, mitigation will include pumpage reduction, replacement of the impacted individuals equipment, relocation of wells, change in withdrawal source, or other means. Interference to an existing legal use is defined as an impact that occurs under hydrologic conditions equal to or less severe than a 1 in 10-year drought event that results in the:

a. Inability to draw water consistent with provisions of the certification, such as when remedial structural or operational actions not materially authorized by existing permits must be taken to address the interference; or Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 34

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

b. Change in the quality of water pursuant to primary State Drinking Water Standards to the extent that the water can no longer be used for its authorized purpose, or such change is imminent.

c. The inability of an existing legal user to meet its permitted demands without exceeding the permitted allocation.

3. The Licensee shall mitigate harm to existing off-site land uses caused by the Licensees withdrawals, as determined through reference to the conditions for certification.

When harm occurs, or is imminent, the SFWMD will require the Licensee to modify withdrawal rates or mitigate the harm. Harm, as determined through reference to these Conditions of Certification includes:

a. Significant reduction in water levels on the property to the extent that the designed function of the water body and related surface water management improvements are damaged, not including aesthetic values. The designed function of a water body is identified in the original permit or other government authorization issued for the construction of the water body. In cases where a permit was not required, the designed function shall be determined based on the purpose for the original construction of the water body (e.g., fill for construction, mining, drainage canal, etc.);

b. Damage to agriculture, including damage resulting from reduction in soil moisture resulting from consumptive use;

c. Land collapse or subsidence caused by reduction in water levels associated with consumptive use.

4. The Licensee shall mitigate harm to natural resources caused by the Licensees withdrawals, as determined through reference to the conditions for permit issuance.

When harm occurs, or is imminent, the SFWMD will require the Licensee to modify withdrawal rates or mitigate the harm. Harm, as determined through reference to the conditions of Certification, includes:

a. Reduction in ground or surface water levels that results in harmful lateral movement of the fresh water/saltwater interface;

b. Reduction in water levels that harm the hydroperiod of wetlands;

d. Significant reduction in water levels or hydroperiod in a naturally occurring water body such as a lake or pond;

e. Harmful movement of contaminants in violation of state water quality standards; or

f. Harm to the natural system including damage to habitat for rare or endangered species.

5. At any time, if there is an indication that the well casing, valves, or controls associated with the on-site well system leak or have become inoperative, the Licensee shall be responsible for making the necessary repairs or replacement to restore the well system to an operating condition acceptable to the SFWMD. Failure to make such repairs shall be the cause for requiring that the well(s) be filled and abandoned in accordance with the procedures outlined in Chapter 40E-3, F.A.C.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 35

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS C. Site Specific Design Authorizations

1. This Certification authorizes an annual allocation of 15,549 million gallons per year (MGY) from the upper production zones of the Floridan aquifer. This allocation is further divided as follows:

4,599 MGY with a 90-day average withdrawal of 14.06 million gallons per day (MGD) used for cooling water for Unit 5 and process water for Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

10,950 MGY with a maximum month withdrawal of 1,033.6 million gallons for salinity reduction in the on-site cooling canal system (CCS).

2. Upon written notification from the SFWMD that a reliable source of reclaimed water is available at the project site to serve Unit 5 in a quantity and quality acceptable to the Licensee for cooling purposes for Unit 5, the Licensee shall provide the SFWMD with a schedule for use of reclaimed water, for the SFWMDs review and approval, within 90 days of such notification. Once the use of reclaimed water has been established, the Licensees use of Floridan Aquifer water shall be reduced in proportion to the volume of reclaimed water made available to Unit #5, such that the combined sources meet the total demand of a 90-day average withdrawal of 14.06 MGD and an average annual withdrawal of 4,599 MGY. Should reclaimed water become temporarily unavailable, the Licensee shall notify the SFWMD within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of commencing temporary withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer.

3. The Licensee is currently authorized to construct and operate the following wells:

Floridan Aquifer Wells - Unit 5 Cooling Water and Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Process Water ID Casing Cased Depth Max Depth Max Flow Diameter (feet) (feet) (gpm)

(inches)

PW-1 24 1,003 1,242 5,000 PW-3 24 1,005 1,247 5,000 PW-4 24 1,015 1,243 5,000 Authorized (never constructed) Floridan Aquifer Wells - Unit 5 Cooling ID Casing Cased Depth Max Depth Max Flow Diameter (feet) (feet) (gpm)

(inches)

PW-2 24 1,020 1,400 5,000 (Cased and Max Depths indicated for proposed wells are estimated based on existing information and may change as needed to accommodate natural changes in the subsurface.)

Floridan Aquifer Wells - CCS Salinity Reduction Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 36

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ID Casing Cased Depth Max Depth Max Flow Diameter (feet) (feet) (gpm)

(inches)

F-1 20 1,012 1,240 1,200 F-2 20 1,010 1,250 4,500 F-3 20 1,010 1,250 4,500 F-4 20 1,010 1,250 4,500 F-5 20 1,028 1,222 4,500 F-6 20 1,067 1,284 4,500 F-7 20 1,057 1,280 4,500

4. Prior to the use of any proposed withdrawal facilities authorized under this Certification, the Licensee shall equip each facility with a SFWMD-approved operating water use accounting system and submit a report of calibration to the SFWMD, pursuant to Subsection 4.1.1 of the Applicants Handbook For Water Use Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District. In addition, the Licensee shall submit a report of recalibration for the water use accounting system for each water withdrawal facility (existing and proposed) authorized under this Certification every five years from each previous calibration, continuing in five-year increments. The Licensee shall report its monthly withdrawals for each withdrawal facility to the SFWMD on a quarterly basis. The Licensee shall specify the water accounting method and means of calibration in each report.

5. Prior to operating the proposed Floridan aquifer wells for the CCS salinity reduction, the Licensee shall submit an operational plan showing how the water use will vary between the wet and dry seasons.

6. Modifications

a. Pursuant to Section 373.236(4), F.S., every ten years from the date of certification issuance, the Licensee shall submit a water use compliance report for review and approval by SFWMD staff to SFWMD at www.sfwmd.gov/ePermitting, or Regulatory Support, MSC 9611, P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680.

b. The Licensee may request a modification of the groundwater withdrawals for consumptive use authorized by this Certification in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.516. F.S. and Section 62-17.211, F.A.C. Any request for an increase in water withdrawals shall be made pursuant to the provisions of Section 403.516, F.S., and Section 62-17.211, F.A.C.

7. Prior to the commencement of construction of those portions of the project which involve dewatering activities, the Licensee shall submit a detailed plan for the proposed dewatering activities to the SFWMD for a determination of compliance with the non-procedural requirements of Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-3, F.A.C., in effect at the time of submittal. The following information, referenced to NGVD or NAVD where appropriate, shall be submitted:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 37

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

a. A detailed site plan which shows the location(s) for each proposed dewatering area;

b. The method(s) used for each dewatering operation;

c. The maximum depth for each dewatering operation;

d. The location and specifications for all proposed wells and/or pumps associated with each dewatering operation;

e. The duration of each dewatering operation;

f. The discharge method, route, and location of receiving waters generated by each dewatering operation, including the measures (Best Management Practices) that will be taken to prevent water quality problems in the receiving water(s);

g. An analysis of the impacts of the proposed dewatering operations on any existing on and/or off-site legal users, wetlands, or existing groundwater contamination plumes;

h. The location of any infiltration trenches and/or recharge barriers; and

i. All plans must be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer or a Professional Geologist registered in the State of Florida.

8. If, during the control of these conditions of certification, any on-site wells require repair, replacement, and/or abandonment, the Licensee shall submit the information described in Chapter 40E-3, F.A.C., for review by the SFWMD prior to initiating such activities.

9. Prior to construction of the proposed on-site wells, the Licensee shall submit the drilling plans and other pertinent information required by Chapter 40E-3, F.A.C., to the SFWMD for review and approval. If the final well locations are different from those originally proposed in the site certification application, the Licensee shall also submit to the SFWMD for review and approval an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed pumpage from the alternate well location(s) on adjacent existing legal users, pollution sources, environmental features, and water bodies.

10. Groundwater Monitoring Plan

a. Within three months of issuance of this Certification, a preliminary groundwater monitoring plan shall be submitted to the SFWMD for a determination of compliance with the non-procedural requirements of Chapter 40E-2, F.A.C. In developing the monitoring plan, the Licensee shall consider well locations, depth and method of construction, types of screens, and frequency of data collection.

b. Within six months of issuance of this Certification, the Licensee shall implement the groundwater monitoring plan.

c. Data from the monitoring described in Section B. Condition X.

Units 3 & 4 Additional Monitoring, paragraph B. Surface Water, Groundwater, Ecological Monitoring History of these Conditions of Certification shall be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the CCS salinity reduction in both the CCS and the underlying Biscayne aquifer.

In addition, monthly sampling for chloride concentration from the Floridan aquifer production Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 38

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS wells when in operation to reduce the salinity reduction in the CCS is required and shall be submitted on a quarterly basis to the SFWMD.

11. Water Conservation Plan

a. Prior to the commencement of construction of Unit 5, the Licensee shall submit a water conservation plan, as described in Chapter 40E-2, F.A.C., for review and approval by SFWMD staff.

b. The water conservation plan shall incorporate the following components:

i. An audit of the amount of water needed in the Licensees operational processes. The following measures shall be implemented within one year of audit completion if found to be cost effective in the audit:

(1) Implementation of a leak detection and repair program; (2) Implementation of a recovery/recycling or other program providing for technological, procedural or programmatic improvements to the Licensees facilities; and (3) Use of processes to decrease water consumption.

ii. Development and implementation of an employee awareness program concerning water conservation.

D. Right-of-Way

1. General

a. Prior to commencing construction of any improvements, which may cross over, on, under, or otherwise use, the SFWMDs right-of-way, the Licensee must submit complete drawings showing the proposed facilities to the SFWMD for documentation of compliance with Chapter 40E-6, F.A.C., and the Right of Way Criteria Manual for Use of Works or Lands of the District, incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-6.091(1), F.A.C. following the post-certification process outlined in Section A. Condition XXI. Procedures for Post-Certification Submittals. These drawings must depict the proposed improvements in both plan and profile views and must show, at a minimum:

i. The canal right-of-way lines; ii. The top of the canal bank and its elevation; iii. The centerline and toes of the levee and their respective elevations; iv. The canal maintenance berm and its elevation at its highest point;

v. A cross-sectional survey at each proposed crossing (aerial or buried) showing the existing canal section superimposed over the canal design section. Surveys shall be taken from right of way line to right of way line with soundings or elevations taken every 10 feet.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 39

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS vi. The location of all existing and proposed improvements located within the SFWMDs right-of-way within the vicinity of the proposed work, including dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements from the top of bank and/or levee toes; vii. The elevation of the lowest line, wire, or cable crossing over the SFWMDs right-of-way, given at the lowest point of sag in the span within the SFWMDs right-of-way; viii. The location and elevation (depth) of any buried facilities installed within the right of way; and ix. The location of the facilities in relation to a section line, major road or other prominent well-known landmark by which the facilities may be located in the field.

b. Any improvement which requires a waiver from the Districts rules or Criteria Manual referenced in paragraph (a) above shall be prohibited under this certification, unless Licensee modifies this certification and follows the requirements for obtaining a waiver set forth in Chapter 120, F.S.

c. The Licensee shall submit all data and information as required by the above Conditions for Certification to: rowpermits@sfwmd.gov, or Right-of-Way Section, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, FL 33406.

[Sections 373.085, 373.086, F.S.; Rules 40E-6.091, 40E-6.201, 40E-6.221, 40E-6.381, F.A.C.]

2. Access

a. If access to the SFWMDs right-of-way is required during construction of the CWRC reclaimed waterline, and/or for inspection, maintenance, and/or operation of after construction, the Licensee shall submit to the SFWMD, following the post-certification process outlined in Section A. Condition XXI. Procedures for Post-Certification Submittals, a detailed plan identifying the following:

i. proposed route; ii. type, weight, length, and number of vehicles to be used; iii. daily trips for each vehicle; iv. proposed material and/or vehicle/equipment storage within the right of way; and,

v. dates of proposed access of the right of way.

b. If travel over a District bridge or facility is required, Licensee shall submit engineering analysis required by the District to determine if the bridge or facility can support the vehicles/equipment proposed to travel over the bridge or facility.

c. Prior to the use of any portion of the SFWMD right-of-way, the Licensee must post a financial assurance, which shall be a minimum of $5,000 per one-half mile, or a greater amount as determined by SFWMD, depending on the scope of work, the route, use of or travel over SFWMD bridges and/or facilities, types of vehicles, and duration.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 40

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

d. Licensee must obtain liability insurance covering the Licensee use of that portion of the right-of-way.

e. Licensee shall comply with all safeguards and guarantees, financial or otherwise, required by SFWMD to ensure that no damage, liability or loss occurs to the Districts right of way, including its bridges and facilities.

f. All use of the SFWMDs right-of-way by Licensee shall be in accordance with Chapter 40E-6, FAC., and the Right of Way Criteria Manual for Use of Works or Lands of the District, incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-6.091(1), F.A.C.

[Sections 373.085, 373.086, F.S.; Rules 40E-6.091, 40E-6.201, 40E-6.221 40E-6.361, 40E-6.381, F.A.C.]

3. Licensee acknowledges its obligation to obtain all necessary approvals from the USACE and that Licensees proposed activities contemplated under this certification are subject to USACE 33 U.S.C. Section 408/33 C.F.R Section 208 approval requirements and therefore Licensee shall provide promptly to SFWMD all information required by the USACE for 33 U.S.C. Section 408/33 C.F.R. Section 208 review. Licensee further acknowledges and agrees that its proposed activities contemplated under this certification shall be subject to all USACE requirements and conditions, including but not limited to USACE setback requirements and construction standards for federal levees to ensure the integrity of the levee is not compromised.

Licensee shall not commence construction of the proposed facilities on SFWMD rights of way contemplated by this certification until the USACE provides all required approvals, including but not limited to 33 U.S.C. Section 408/33 C.F.R. Section 208 approval. Licensee further acknowledges and agrees, that in the event of future USACE projects or modification of existing USACE projects, it shall be the responsibility of the Licensee to implement any and all necessary modifications to Licensees facilities including, but not limited to, relocations thereof required by USACE at Licensees sole cost and expense.

[Federal Water Resources Development Acts of 1992, 1996 and 2000; 33 U.S.C. 408; 33 C.F.R. 385 and 208; Sections 373.1501, 373.103 (2), F.S.; Rule 40E-6, F.A.C.]

IV. FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION A. General Listed Species Surveys

1. Prior to start of construction of the Certified facilities, the Licensee shall follow the current survey protocols for all listed species that may occur within the Certified Facility as well as accessible appropriate buffers within the property or rights-of-way as defined by the listed species' survey protocols, prior to conducting detailed surveys. Guidance related to species-specific survey protocols can be found in the FWCs Florida Wildlife Conservation Guide at http://myfwc.com/conservation/value/fwcg/. Specific listed species surveys shall be conducted in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/FWC guidelines and methodologies by a person or firm that is knowledgeable and experienced in conducting flora and fauna surveys for each potentially occurring listed species.

2. FWCs survey protocols may be downloaded from https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/species-guidelines/.

[Article IV, Section 9, Florida Constitution; Sections 379.2291, 403.507, F.S.; Chapter 68A-27 and Rule 62-17.191, F.A.C.]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 41

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS B. Endangered and Threatened Species Prior to start of construction, the Licensee shall survey the portion of the certified site which may be affected by construction for species of animal and plant life listed as endangered or threatened by the federal government or listed as endangered by the state. If these species are found, their presence shall be reported to the Siting Coordination Office, the SED, and the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission's Office of Conservation Planning Services at ConservationPlanningServices@MyFWC.com. These species shall not be disturbed, if practicable. If avoidance is not practicable, the endangered species shall be treated as recommended by the appropriate agency.

[Article IV, Section 9, Florida Constitution; Sections 379.2291, F.S.; Chapters 68A-4, 68A-16, 68A-27, and Rule 62-17.191, F.A.C.]

C. Gopher Tortoise

1. The Licensee shall coordinate with and provide the FWC detailed gopher tortoise relocation information in accordance with the FWC-approved Gopher Tortoise Management Plan and Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines as a post-Certification submittal.

This information shall provide details on the location for on-site recipient areas and any off-site FWC-approved temporary contiguous habitat, as well as appropriate mitigation contributions per tortoise, as outlined in the Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines.

2. Entombment of gopher tortoises shall not be allowed

3. To the maximum extent practicable or feasible, all staging, and storage areas shall be sited to avoid impacts to gopher tortoise burrows and habitat.

[Article IV, Sec. 9, Florida Constitution; Sections 379.2291, 403.507, 403.526, and 403.5113, F.S.; Chapter 68A-27 and Rule 62-17.191, FA.C.]

D. Cooling Canal System Crocodile Population Protection

1. Continuation of Current Monitoring The applicant shall continue with current crocodile monitoring efforts including identification surveys, breeding surveys, nest locations monitoring, and captures, and these efforts shall continue throughout the Unit 3 and Unit 4 uprating process.

2. Additional Monitoring Specific protocols shall be followed for additional monitoring of crocodiles within the Turkey Point cooling canal system. These protocols based upon work by Mazzotti and Cherkiss shall be followed for the additional monitoring described below.

a. Surveys shall be conducted both pre- and post- Units 3 and 4 uprate to determine any effects of temperature and salinity changes on crocodiles in the cooling canal system. Surveys shall be initially conducted for a one-year period, after which protocols shall be reviewed for appropriateness. Any changes shall be submitted to the FWC.

b. Additional data shall be collected to determine changes in spatial distribution within the canal system. Data shall be collected monthly from the entire system.

Monthly events shall consist of 3 to 4 nights per event, and data collected shall include animal size, GPS location, salinity, and air and water temperatures.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 42

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

c. Additional data shall be collected to determine changes to growth and survival of crocodiles within the cooling canal system. The entire cooling canal system shall be monitored at least twice a year for five days and four nights per event. Data collected shall include biometric data for each individual hand captured or trapped.

d. If it is determined that there is a negative effect on crocodiles within the cooling canal system due to the Uprate project, the licensee shall monitor the crocodile population outside of the system, particularly in the FPL mitigation areas, to determine if there is no net negative effect. If growth and survival is affected within the system, then using telemetry data on crocodiles moving into and out of the system may show whether or not there is an overall change in the crocodile population at Turkey Point. A summary of monitoring efforts and results shall be included in the Annual Report.

e. If negative effects on crocodile habitat occur, as evidenced by monitoring of crocodile growth, population, and survivorship, FPL shall implement corrective actions in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements for the protection of endangered species habitat.

3. Annual Report FPL shall submit an Annual Report including all data and statistical analyses resulting from the above monitoring requirements to FWC in order for FWC to assess changes in the crocodile population. The report shall be submitted beginning 12 months from initial monitoring, and every 12 months thereafter. Copies of these annual reports shall be provided to the DEP Siting Coordination Office, DERM and the Manager of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. FPL shall notify DERM and the Manager of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve of any meeting with FWC and DEP to address issues raised in these annual reports.

[Chapter 68A - 27, F.A.C.; Miami-Dade CDMP Coastal Management - 1E]

E. Horizontal Directional Drilling Manatee Protection Conservation Measures

1. These conditions are for the installation of pipelines (such as conduits for electrical, water, cable, etc.) by horizontal directional drilling (HDD) methodology used in waters accessible to manatees. The following scenarios are exceptions to these conditions:

a. Trenching in manatee accessible waterways;

b. Pipeline is intended for the transport of oil, gas or other potentially hazardous materials;

c. Installation is expected to adversely affect submerged aquatic resources.

If the proposed project includes any of the above exceptions, these conditions do not apply and FWC should be consulted for review and comment. If none of the above-mentioned exceptions are applicable and these measures are implemented by FPL, all state requirements for the protection of manatees will be met.

2. If a manatee appears to be in distress after coming in contact with drilling mud, work vessels or equipment, it shall be reported immediately by calling the FWC Hotline at 1-888-404-3922. Any collision with or injury to a manatee shall also be reported immediately.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 43

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS A follow-up written report shall be sent to FWC as soon as practicable at ImperiledSpecies@myfwc.com, including the dates, details, and status of the event.

3. During in-water construction activities and in the event of a frac-out, the following manatee conditions shall be followed:

a. All personnel associated with the project shall be instructed about the presence of manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act.

b. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "Idle Speed/No Wake while in the project area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible and follow any posted speed zones.

c. If used, siltation, turbidity barriers, booms, or curtains shall be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly monitored to avoid manatee entanglement or entrapment. Barriers must not impede manatee movement.

d. All on site project personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of manatee(s). All in-water operations, including vessels, must be shut-down if a manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s) has moved beyond the 50-foot radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the manatee(s) has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation. Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving.

e. Temporary signs concerning manatees shall be posted on all vessels associated with the project. This sign shall measure at least 8 1/2 by 11" and explain the requirements for Idle Speed/No Wake and the shutdown of in-water operations. Information on this sign is available at: https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/manatee/education-for-marinas/.

[Sections 379.2431(2) and 373.414(1)(a)2, F.S.]

V. DEPARTMENT OF STATE - DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES A. Prior to new construction of Certified facilities in areas not previously surveyed, the Licensee shall conduct a survey of sensitive cultural resource areas, as determined in consultation with the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR). A qualified cultural resources consultant will identify an appropriate work plan for this project based on a thorough review of the certified facility. Prior to beginning any field work, the work plan will be reviewed in consultation with DHR. Upon completion of the survey, the results will be compiled into a report which shall be submitted to DHR. If feasible, sites considered to be eligible for the National Register shall be avoided during construction of the project and access roads, and subsequently during maintenance. If avoidance of any discovered sites is not feasible, impact shall be mitigated through archaeological salvage operations or other methods acceptable to DHR, as appropriate.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 44

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS B. If historical or archaeological artifacts or features are discovered at any time within the certified facility, the Licensee shall notify the appropriate DEP District office(s) and the DHR, R.A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Room 423, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250, telephone number (850) 245-6333, and the Licensee shall consult with DHR to determine appropriate action.

[Sections 267.061, 403.531, and 872.02, F.S.]

VI. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES Only herbicides registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall be used at certified facilities.

Herbicide applications will be in accordance with label directions and will be carried out by a licensed applicator, in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations. Herbicide applications shall be selectively applied to targeted vegetation. Broadcast application of herbicide shall not be used unless effects on non-targeted vegetation are minimized.

[Chapter 487, F.S.]

VII. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY A. General Construction and operation of the certified facilities shall be in accordance with all applicable nonprocedural requirements of the laws and ordinances of Miami Dade County in effect on November 14, 2003, including, but not limited to, the Miami Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan and Chapters 8, 11C, 14, 18A, 24, and 33 of the Code of Miami Dade County, Florida.

B. Unit 5 Expansion Project

1. Protection of Existing Legal Water Users

a. As provided in Section B. Condition III. South Florida Water Management District, paragraph B, if SFWMD determines that the potential exists for Licensees proposed Floridan Aquifer withdrawals to cause interference with existing legal users, authorization for such withdrawals shall be contingent upon SFWMD establishing acceptable withdrawal rates and requiring necessary and appropriate mitigation, pursuant to SFWMDs Basis of Review for Water Use Permits, to prevent interference with existing legal users.

Licensee shall submit copies of any reports on additional modeling, alternative water supplies, and mitigation plans to WASD.

b. Licensee shall provide a copy to WASD of any notice received from SFWMD pursuant to Section B. Condition III. South Florida Water Management District, paragraph C.2, that a reliable source of reclaimed water is available at the Project site to serve Unit 5.

c. If reclaimed water from the South District Wastewater Treatment Plant is used as a source of makeup to the Unit 5 cooling tower, blowdown from the cooling tower shall be discharged to, or disposed of, in the CWRC underground injection control system.

2. The following detailed plans must be submitted to DERM prior to initiation of work in tidal waters or wetlands:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 45

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

a. The site plan layout shall be consistent with, or have wetland impacts less than, the plans described in the document Turkey Point Expansion Project, Refined Mitigation Proposal, FPL, April 2004 or as subsequently amended or modified.

b. Two or more sets of construction drawings and engineering calculations signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida and a land survey sealed by a licensed land surveyor registered in the State of Florida for those elements of the project that involve wetlands. These plans must include sufficient detail and be prepared at a scale that clearly identifies the limits of filling in wetlands and tidal waters, on-site mitigation areas, structures other than fill in tidal waters or wetlands, and typical cross-sections of all elements of the project that affect wetlands.

c. A construction management plan which shall include methods or best management practices for preventing or controlling secondary impacts from turbidity, siltation, fugitive dust, unpermitted impacts to adjoining waters or wetlands, fill or excavated material, construction debris, noise, or artificial lighting.

d. A plan for further assessment of materials proposed to be used for filling tidal water and wetlands, including physical, chemical and biological effects tests as determined in cooperation with local and state environmental agencies. Placement of fill shall not commence until additional testing and analysis of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of fill material have been completed in accordance with requirements of DERM.

e. A water quality and biological monitoring plan for documenting compliance with narrative and numerical water quality targets during construction.

f. A post-construction long-term water quality and biological monitoring plan for areas near or downstream of the built areas, on-site mitigation areas, and on-site restoration areas.

g. A detailed on-site mitigation and restoration plan including signed and sealed construction drawings (plan views and cross-sections), planting configuration and species list, hydraulic or tidal exchange calculations, exotic control and maintenance methods, and success criteria. This plan shall be consistent with the document Turkey Point Expansion Project, Refined Mitigation Proposal, FPL, April 2004 or as subsequently amended or modified.

h. A plan for monitoring and responding to the occurrence of endangered (or other listed species) in the construction area.

i. A stormwater management plan, including calculations and construction drawings.

j. A plan for training all on-site construction-related workers with respect to environmental resource protection requirements.

3. The applicant shall mark in a conspicuous fashion the boundaries or limits of all work/fill areas, mitigation areas, preservation areas, or protected species habitat. This may be accomplished with fencing, flagging, buoys, silt barriers, hay bales, or other forms of durable demarcation. Field markers shall include survey benchmarks or reference points that can be compared to approved construction plans and drawings. Prior to construction in wetlands or tidal waters, the layout must be approved by DERM. The markers shall be maintained for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 46

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS entirety of construction to facilitate compliance inspections and also to reduce the chance of unauthorized impacts to resources.

4. Seven days prior to the start of construction in wetlands or tidal waters, the Licensee shall allow prior approved third-party access for the salvage of desirable native vegetation occurring within the areas to be filled or cleared.

5. Dredging and filling of coastal wetlands shall be limited to the minimum amount for public necessity or enhancement of biological, chemical or physical characteristics of adjacent waters.

6. On-site mitigation and restoration areas shall be maintained free (less than 1% cover) of invasive exotic vegetation in perpetuity.

7. Within 90 days of the start of construction, the Licensee shall convey title of 307 acres of wetland, as defined in the Turkey Point Expansion Project, Refined Mitigation Proposal, FPL, April 2004 or as subsequently amended or modified, to the appropriate federal, state, or local resource management agency for conservation or restoration purposes consistent with the goals of ongoing regional restoration plans.

8. Unconsolidated shorelines created as a result of the project shall be stabilized with native vegetation, such as but not limited to mangroves. If seawalls or bulkheads are constructed in or adjacent to tidal waters, they shall include the use of rip-rap or similar wave attenuation devices in their design.

9. Construction of on-site mitigation shall be initiated within 90 days of the beginning of filling of coastal wetlands or tidal waters. Construction of on-site mitigation shall be completed within 90 days of the completion of filling of wetlands except areas to be restored after completion of project construction.

10. Restoration of temporarily filled wetlands shall commence within 60 days of completion of construction on the power block or by January 2010, whichever first occurs.

11 Should upland construction damage or require removal of upland trees, the Licensee shall be required to preserve specimen trees (trunk > 18 in. DBH) and replace upland tree canopy in accordance with the requirements of Article III. Tree Preservation and Protection Sec. 24-60 of the Code of Miami-Dade County. This requirement includes trees along entrance roads and existing landscaped areas and shall be in addition to establishment of coastal hammocks proposed as part of on-site mitigation.

12. Exotic pest plant species on the development site uplands shall be removed prior to development.

13. Temporary and permanent fill pads shall be graded to slope away from tidal waters and wetlands.

14. Construction of permanent parking areas, walkways, and amenities shall use semi-pervious materials to reduce runoff where feasible and compatible with safety requirements.

15. This Certification does not replace or eliminate the need for appropriate annual operating permits from Miami-Dade County for any existing, new or improved facilities located at the Turkey Point Power Plant site but not within the area covered by this Certification Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 47

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS as delineated in the Site Certification Application. If reclaimed water is used as makeup to the Unit 5 cooling tower, cooling tower blowdown shall only be discharged to, or disposed of, in the CRWC underground injection control system for disposal. Pursuant to the Agreement between Miami-Dade County and FPL approved by Resolution R-579-20, no water or waste from the CWRC shall be discharged to, or disposed of, in the cooling canal system.

C. Review and Monitoring of Additional Freshening Activities

1. The freshening authorized by PA 03-45F (Modification F) shall be in accordance with all applicable nonprocedural requirements of the Code of Miami-Dade County, and shall not result in violations of applicable surface water quality and groundwater quality standards or criteria identified in Chapter 24 of the Code. If monitoring data collected pursuant to Section B. Condition VII. Miami-Dade County, paragraph C.2 demonstrates the freshening results in violations of applicable surface or groundwater quality standards or criteria identified in Chapter 24 of the Code, FPL shall, in consultation with Miami Dade County, implement measures to abate such violation.

2. FPL shall increase monitoring in areas that are or may be influenced by seepage or movement of water into and out of the CCS as a result of the additional freshening, as follows. The sampling frequency for monitoring wells TPGW-2, TPGW-17, TPGW-L5-18, TPGW-L3-18 shall be increased from quarterly to monthly for a consecutive period of twelve (12) months starting the month in which the additional freshening activities authorized by PA 03-45F (Modification F) commences (flow rate from F F-7 first exceeds 14 mgd). Groundwater from the monitoring wells shall be sampled and analyzed for the parameters listed in the MDC Consent Agreement (CA), dated October 2015 (monitoring program modified August 20, 2019).

[Chapter 24, Code of Miami-Dade County]

D. CWRC Construction and Operation

1. Prior to construction of the CWRC, the Licensee shall submit all information necessary for a Class III permit for review by MDC under the post-certification process outlined in Section A. Condition XXI. Procedures for Post-Certification Submittals. No separate permit shall be issued.

[Section 24-42, Code Miami-Dade County]

2. Prior to initiation of dewatering activities associated with construction of the CWRC reclaimed waterline, FPL shall submit all information necessary for a Class V permit for review by MDC under the post-certification process outlined in Section A. Condition XXI.

Procedures for Post-Certification Submittals. No separate permit shall be issued.

[Section 24-48, Code Miami-Dade County]

3. If sodding and/or seeding is proposed as an erosion control method, the species utilized shall not consist of those defined as exotic pest plant and nuisance species pursuant to Section 24-49.9 of the Code of Miami-Dade County.

[Section 24-49, Code Miami-Dade County]

4. Pursuant to Section 24-28.4(3), Code of Miami-Dade County, restoration of temporarily filled wetlands shall commence within 60 days of completion of construction on the CWRC reclaimed waterline or by January 2026 (or other agreed upon time frame),

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 48

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS whichever first occurs. With concurrence from DEP, the County, and the Licensee, this timeline may vary, without the need for a modification of these conditions.

[Section 24-28, Code Miami-Dade County]

5. Should upland construction damage or require removal of upland trees, the Licensee shall be required to preserve specimen trees (trunk > 18 in. DBH) to the extent practicable and mitigate for impacts to tree canopy in accordance with the requirements of Sec.

24-49 of the Code of Miami-Dade County. Prior to initiation of tree clearing activities associated with construction of the CWRC waterline, FPL shall submit a tree survey and tree mitigation plan as required by Section 24-49 of the Code of Miami-Dade County following the Procedures for Post-Certification Submittals outlined in Section A. Condition XXI. No separate permit shall be issued. Trees located within wetlands are not subject to these tree canopy replacement requirements.

[Section 24-49, Code Miami-Dade County]

6. Pursuant to Section 24-41.5 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, the Licensee may conduct open burning of land clearing debris. All open burning of land clearing debris shall be conducted in accordance with the general conditions contained in the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Department Application for Open Burning Permit. No separate permit shall be issued. The Licensee shall notify the Fire Communication Office (786-268-6635) each day prior to burning. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Department may inspect the site where open burning is occurring to observe the burning.

FPL may conduct open burning on weekends if necessary, and within 300 feet of public roads provided the visibility is not reduced to less than 1,000 ft and upon notice to the listed County officials.

[Section 24-41, Code Miami-Dade County]

7. Work within the Countys public rights-of-way shall conform to applicable sections of the uniform standards established by the official Public Works Manual.

Prior to construction of the reclaimed waterline within the Countys public rights-of-way, FPL shall submit all information necessary for a Public Works permit for review by MDC under the post-certification process outlined in Section A. Condition XXI. Procedures for Post-Certification Submittals. No separate permit shall be issued.

[Section 2-103.1, Code Miami-Dade County]

E. Flood Control Protection Any construction of new facilities for the certified plant and associated facilities shall be protected from flood damage by construction in such a manner as to comply with the appropriate Miami-Dade County flood protection requirements or by flood proofing or by raising the elevation of the facilities above the 100-year flood level, whichever is more stringent.

However, existing facilities are not required to be modified to comply with such flood control protection standards.

F. Noise Construction and operation noise shall not exceed noise criteria or any applicable requirements of Miami-Dade County. The Licensee shall notify area residents in advance of the onset and anticipated duration of the steam blowout of the facility's heat recovery steam generator and steam lines.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 49

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS VIII. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT A. Emergency Plan - Units 3 & 4 The applicant shall work with the State Division of Emergency Management and the State Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, and Miami-Dade County in biennial updating of the emergency procedures and evacuation planning as necessary, including but not limited to improvements in communication and warning systems and in updating predicted plume overlays.

B. Comprehensive Hurricane Preparation and Recovery Plan

1. FPL shall incorporate the Unit 5 site into the Comprehensive Hurricane Preparation and Recovery Plan for the overall Turkey Point Clean Energy Site.

2. FPL shall submit a formal update of the Comprehensive Hurricane Preparation and Recovery Plan to the State Division of Emergency Management, the Miami-Dade County Office of Emergency Management every five (5) years following commencement of commercial operation of the Unit 5 and whenever an additional electrical generating unit is brought into service at the Turkey Point Plant site.

IX. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH A. Monitoring - Units 3 & 4 The Licensee shall comply with the most recent Department of Health Environmental Surveillance Agreement or its equivalent or future replacement. Should the Department of Health determine that additional monitoring is required, it may take appropriate action to require such monitoring by modification of this condition of certification.

B. Interagency Agreement - Units 3 & 4 The applicant shall comply with the Emergency Response Capability Agreement between the Florida Department of Health and the Florida Power and Light Company effective July 1, 1982, or as may be subsequently revised. (Attached as Exhibit A)

X. UNITS 3 & 4 ADDITIONAL MONITORING A. Biscayne Bay Surface Water Monitoring As proposed, the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 uprate project may cause an increase in temperature and salinity in the cooling canal system. Field data is needed in order to determine impacts of the proposed changes in the Turkey Point cooling canal system on Biscayne Bay.

1. No later than July 31, 2009, FPL shall submit a Biscayne Bay Surface Water Monitoring Plan (Plan) pursuant to Chapter 62-302, F.A.C. to the DEP Southeast District Office for review and approval. The submittal deadline may be extended upon agreement between the Licensee, DEP, SFWMD and Miami-Dade County. Agreements for extensions shall be submitted to the Siting Office prior to the deadline. The Plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components:

a. salinity and temperature monitoring within the surface waters of the Bay, including the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve; (Specific parameters to be measured, Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 50

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS including specific conductance and temperature, shall be sampled in accordance with Chapter 62-160, F.A.C.);

b. a minimum of five monitoring stations located near shore in the vicinity of the Turkey Point Plant; and

c. specific monitoring locations, sampling frequencies and methods, and specific parameters to be monitored.

2. This monitoring data shall be compared to data using compatible monitoring instrumentation already in place in Biscayne Bay.

3. FPL shall continue the monitoring of salinity and temperature in the cooling canals under its industrial wastewater facility permit.

4. If the Department determines that the pre- and post-Uprate salinity and temperature monitoring data indicate potential adverse changes in the surface water in Biscayne Bay, then the Department may propose additional measures to evaluate or to abate such impacts to Biscayne Bay.

5. The Plan, including monitoring locations, shall be approved prior to implementation. The Department shall indicate its approval or disapproval of the submitted plan within 90 days of the originally submitted information. In the event that the Department requires additional information for the licensee to complete, and the Department to approve the Plan, the Department shall make a written request to the licensee for additional information no later than 30 days after receipt of the submitted information. Any changes to the approved Surface Water Monitoring Plan shall be approved by Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas personnel in consultation with other FDEP personnel.

[formerly known as Condition IX for 5th Supplemental Agreement identification purposes; Chapters62-160 and 62-302, Rules62-302.700 and 62-520.600, F.A.C.]

B. Surface Water, Groundwater, and Ecological Monitoring This is a consolidated condition agreed upon by three agencies, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). This consolidated condition sets forth the framework for new monitoring and, as may be needed, abatement or mitigation measures, for approval of FPLs Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Uprate Application. Specific monitoring and potential modeling parameters will be identified and implemented pursuant to a monitoring plan as part of a supplemental agreement between FPL and the SFWMD as described below.

1. In addition to the monitoring framework set forth in this consolidated condition, no later than July 31, 2009, FPL shall execute a SFWMD approved Fifth Supplemental Turkey Point Agreement ("Fifth Supplemental Agreement") to the original 1972 Agreement between FPL and the SFWMD pertaining to FPL's obligation to monitor for impacts from the Turkey Point cooling canal system to the water resources of the SFWMD in general and the facilities and operations of the SFWMD (the "Agreement"). Subject to the SFWMD's approval, FPL shall also amend the Agreement's Revised Operating Manual as referenced in paragraph C. "Monitoring Provisions" (the "Revised Plan") of the Fourth Supplemental Agreement, dated July 15, 1983. The Revised Plan shall be incorporated into the Fifth Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 51

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Supplemental Agreement and shall include assessment of potential impacts to surface water and ground water including wetlands, as needed, in the vicinity of the cooling canal system. The specific monitoring boundaries shall be determined as part of the Revised Plan. The submittal deadline may be extended upon agreement between the Licensee, the SFWMD, DEP and Miami-Dade County. Agreements for extensions shall be submitted to the Siting Office prior to the deadline.

2. The Revised Plan shall be designed to be in concurrence with other existing and ongoing monitoring efforts in the area and shall include but not necessarily be limited to, surface water, groundwater and water quality monitoring, and ecological monitoring to:

a. Delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of the hyper-saline plume that originates from the cooling canal system and to characterize the water quality including salinity and temperature impacts of this plume for the baseline condition;

b. Determine the extent and effect of the groundwater plume on surface water quality as a baseline condition; and

c. Detect changes in the quantity and quality of surface and ground water over time due to the cooling canal system associated with the Uprate project. The Revised Plan shall include installation and monitoring of an appropriate network of wells and surface water stations. The Revised Plan shall be approved by the SFWMD in consultation with the DEP Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas, the DEP Southeast District Office and DERM.

3. FPL shall transmit electronic copies of all data and reports required under the Fifth Supplemental Agreement and the Revised Plan in accordance with timeframes as approved in the Fifth Supplemental Agreement to:

SFWMD, Director, Water Supply (or alternative transmittal procedures to be described in the Fifth Supplemental Agreement);

Miami-Dade County, Director, DERM; DEP, Director, Southeast District Office; DEP Siting Coordination Office DEP, Director, Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Manager,

4. If the DEP in consultation with SFWMD and DERM determines that the pre- and post-Uprate monitoring data: is insufficient to evaluate changes as a result of this project; indicates harm or potential harm to the waters of the State including ecological resources; exceeds State or County water quality standards; or is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the CERP Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project, then additional measures, including enhanced monitoring and/or modeling, shall be required to evaluate or to abate such impacts. Additional measures include but are not limited to:

a. The development and application of a 3-dimensional coupled surface and groundwater model (density dependent) to further assess impacts of the Uprate Project on ground and surface waters; such model shall be calibrated and verified using the data collection during the monitoring period; Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 52

SECTION B: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

b. Mitigation measures to offset such impacts of the Uprate Project necessary to comply with State and local water quality standards, which may include methods and features to reduce and mitigate salinity increases in groundwater including the use of highly treated reuse water for recharge of the Biscayne Aquifer or wetlands rehydration;

c. Operational changes in the cooling canal system to reduce any such impacts; and/or

d. Other measures to abate impacts as may be described in the Revised Plan.

[formerly known as Condition X for 5th Supplemental Agreement identification purposes; Sections 373.016, 373.223, F.S.; Rules 40E-4.011, 40E-4.301, 40E-4.302, F.A.C.;

Sections62-302 and 62-520, F.A.C.; Section 24-42, Code of Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Land Use Element, Conservation Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Coastal Management Element]

C. Cooling Canal System Floridan Production Well Monitoring FPL shall monitor the existing Floridan production wells (F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6, and F-7) on a quarterly basis for: water level or pressure; temperature; pH, Total Dissolved Solids; specific conductance; major anions/cations (including chlorides); NH3; total nitrogen; and total phosphorus. This monitoring data shall be made available to Miami-Dade County as well as FDEP and the SFWMD. On a semi-annual basis, Miami-Dade County may collect groundwater samples of the existing Floridan production wells (F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6, and F-7) for constituents including but not limited to O18/16 and Strontium (87Sr/86Sr).

[Pre-Hearing Joint Stipulation signed 11/20/15 and Final Order issued by the Siting Board signed 4/1/16]

HISTORY Unit 5 Certified on 02/07/05; signed by Governor Bush Modified on 06/22/06; signed by Siting Administrator Oven Modified on 04/24/07; signed by Siting Administrator Halpin Units 3 & 4 Certified on 10/29/08; signed by Secretary Sole Modified on 1/6/09; signed by Siting Administrator Halpin Modified on 06/19/09; signed by Siting Administrator Halpin Modified on 03/19/15 (E.1); signed by Deputy Secretary Cobb Modified on 3/29/16 (E); signed by Governor Scott Modified on 10/19/2021 (F); signed by Siting Administrator Mulkey Modified on 1/24/2022 (G); signed by Siting Administrator Mulkey Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Units 3-5 Conditions of Certification PA03-45G 53

ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A: Maps

1. Site Boundary

2. Certified Facilities delineation (on-site, off-site, linear and non-linear)

To be attached pursuant to Section A. Condition I. Scope Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Conditions of Certification PA03-45

3$7+*?3URMHFWV?)3/?7XUNH\B3RLQW?B8QLWB5HFODLPHG:DWHU3URMHFW?B352-(&76?&B6&$B0RGLILFDWLRQ?B352'8&7,21?0;'?B&B&HUWLILHG6LWHVP[G

,)7+,60($685(0(17'2(61270$7&+:+$7,66+2:17+(6+((76,=(+$6%((102',),(')520$16,$

6RXUFH(VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'6

86'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\

/(*(1'

[.J

[.J 73DQG8SUDWH&HUWLILHG6LWH

([LVWLQJ2ULJLQDO73&HUWLILHG6LWH 7XUNH\3RLQW8QLWV 6LWH 5()(5(1&( 6



- -  

&225',1$7(6<67(01$'67$7(3/$1()/25,'$1257+),36)((7 352-(&7,21/$0%(57&21)250$/&21,&



)HHW

[ZI &:5&$UHD '$7801257+$0(5,&$1

L-.J 8QLWDQG&:5&$UHD&HUWLILHG%RXQGDU\

&/,(17

)/25,'$32:(5 /,*+7&203$1<

352-(&7

)3/0,$0,'$'(&/($1:$7(55(&29(5<&(17(5352-(&7 LQ

&2168/7$17 <<<<00  7,7/(

'(6,*1(' -*: &(57,),('6,7(%281'$5,(6 35(3$5(' -*:

5(9,(:(' .$%

352-(&712 &21752/ 5(9 ),*85(

FPL $33529(' ..  &   

ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT B:

A: Surface Water Management System Operation and Maintenance Requirements for systems constructed prior to October 2013 (Unit 5 - as reviewed and accepted in Unit 5 Site Certification Application)

1. Periodic Inspections of the stormwater management system(s), to include site conveyance swales, weirs, and pond discharge control structures, shall occur.

2. Structural portions of the stormwater management system, mitered end sections, weirs, and discharge structures will be inspected for cracks or structural failures, deterioration (both the structure and supporting soils), clogging, and build-up of sediment.

3. Repairs will be completed to bring the structural unit b ack to the permitted conditions.

4. Stormwater conveyance systems, to include overland flow areas, swale bottoms and sideslopes, pond bottoms and sideslopes, and the pond discharge location will be inspected for erosion, stressed or overgrown vegetation, and build-up sedimentation.

5. Grassed areas will be mowed and maintained as needed.

6. Problems detected during routine inspections will be addressed and corrected as soon as possible, but in no case more than three months after detection.

B: Surface Water Management System Operation and Maintenance Requirements for systems constructed after October 2013 (effective date of Chapter 62-330, F.A.C.)

1. In accordance with Section 373.416(2), F.S., unless revoked or abandoned, all stormwater management systems, dams, impoundments, reservoirs, appurtenant works, or works permitted under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., must be operated and maintained in perpetuity. The operation and maintenance shall be in accordance with the designs, plans, calculations, and other specifications that are submitted with any amendment or modification and approved by the Department.

2. A registered professional must perform inspections annually after conversion of the project to the operation and maintenance phase to identify if there are any deficiencies in structural integrity, degradation due to insufficient maintenance, or improper operation of the stormwater management system or other surface water management systems that may endanger public health, safety, or welfare, or the water resources, and to insure that systems are functioning as designed and approved. Within 30 days of the inspection, a report shall be submitted electronically or in writing to the Department using Form 62-330.311(1), Operation and Maintenance Inspection Certification.

3. If deficiencies are found, the Turkey Point Clean Energy Center will be responsible for correcting the deficiencies so that the project is returned to the operational functions as designed and approved. The corrections must be done a timely manner to prevent compromises to flood protection and water quality.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Conditions of Certification PA03-45

ATTACHMENTS

4. If the operational maintenance and corrective measures are insufficient to enable the systems to meet the performance standards of this chapter, the Turkey Point Plant must either replace the systems or construct an alternative design.

5. The Turkey Point Clean Energy Center shall provide for periodic inspections in addition to the annual inspections, especially after heavy rain. It must maintain a record of each inspection, including the date of inspection, the name and contact information of the inspector, whether the system was functioning as designed and approved, and make such record available upon request of the Department. Within 30 days of any failure of any system or deviation from the conditions, a report shall be submitted electronically or in writing to the Department using Form 62-330.311(1), Operation and Maintenance Inspection Certification, describing the remedial actions taken to resolve the failure or deviation.

6. The Turkey Point Clean Energy Center shall immediately notify the Department by telephone whenever a serious problem occurs at this facility. Notification shall be made to the Departments Southeast District Office at (516) 681-6600. Within 7 days of telephone notification, a report shall be submitted electronically or in writing to the Department using Form 62-330.311(1), Operation and Maintenance Inspection Certification, describing the extent of the problem, its cause, the remedial actions taken to resolve the problem.

7. The following operational maintenance activities shall be performed on approved systems on a regular basis or as needed:

a. Removal of trash and debris from the surface water management systems,

b. Inspection of culverts, culvert risers, pipes and screwgates for damage, blockage, excessive leakage or deterioration, if applicable,

c. Inspection of stormwater berms, if applicable,

d. Inspection of pipes for evidence of lateral seepage,

e. Inspection of flapgates for excessive backflow or deterioration, if applicable,

f. Removal of sediments when the storage volume or conveyance capacity of the surface water management system is below design levels,

g. Stabilization and restoration of eroded areas,

h. Inspection of pump stations for structural integrity and leakage of fuel or oil to the ground or surface water, if applicable, and

i. Inspection of monitoring equipment, including pump hour meters and staff gauges, for damage and operational status, if applicable.

8. In addition to the practices listed above, specific operational maintenance activities are required, if applicable, depending on the type of approved system, as follows:

a. Overland flow systems shall include provisions for:

i. Mowing and removal of clippings, and ii. Maintenance of spreader swales and overland flow areas to prevent channelization.

b. Spray irrigation systems for reuse/disposal shall include provisions for:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Conditions of Certification PA03-45

ATTACHMENTS

i. Inspection of the dispersal system, including the sprayheads or perforated pipe for damage or clogging, and ii. Maintenance of the sprayfield to prevent channelization.

c. Treatment systems which incorporate isolated wetlands shall include provisions for:

i. Stabilization and restoration of channelized areas, and ii. Removal of sediments which interfere with the function of the wetland or treatment system.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Conditions of Certification PA03-45

ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT C: Mitigation Requirements/Plans Requirements Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) certified Turkey Point Power Plant Units 3-5 through the Florida Electric Power Plant Siting Act. The certification PA 03-45 was approved:

Unit 5 on 02/07/05; signed by Governor Bush History of wetland impacts and mitigation:

Project Impacts Mitigation Status Project Completed Unit 5 Expansion - Area A 24.32 acres equating to 8.99 credits from Complete Yes (Power Block and Collector 22.5 Functional Credit Everglades Mitigation Yard), Area C (Site Runoff Units (FCU) Bank Stormwater Ponds), Area D 66.36 acres of on-site (Construction Laydown, wetland enhancement Parking and Trailers), Area E and creation (7 FCU)

(Roadway Expansion Area)

Transfer of 307.86 acres Unit 5 Expansion Secondary 9.66 acres equating to Complete Yes to Biscayne National Impacts 1.66 FCUs Park (8.37 FCU)

A total of 24.16 FCUs required to offset wetland impacts associated with the construction of the Unit 5 expansion project, 22.5 credits for direct unavoidable wetland impacts and 1.66 credits for secondary impacts. Mitigation satisfied by a combination of mitigation credit purchase from the Everglades Mitigation Bank, on-site wetland enhancement and creation, and land transfer.

CWRC (Mod G) 0.4 acre of permanent Purchase from impact and 40.52 acres Everglades Mitigation of temporary impact to Bank of 6.80 Saltwater mangrove swamp Mitigation credits Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Conditions of Certification PA03-45

ATTACHMENTS Mitigation Plan for Unit 5 Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Conditions of Certification PA03-45

Expansion Project MITIGATION PLAN 0337600-0108 JANUARY 27, 2005

1/27/05 ES-1 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

As a result of consultation with regulatory agencies, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) has refined some aspects of the Turkey Point Expansion Project in order to avoid and/or minimize wetland impacts. FPLs avoidance and minimization efforts have resulted in significant revisions to the Project design, which has reduced direct wetland impacts from 36.94 to 24.32 acres. The restoration of temporary construction laydown areas and removal of the temporary entrance road (5.34 acres) results in a total of 18.98 acres of permanent impacts, or a 49-percent decrease compared to the original Project design.

Wetland direct impacts and secondary impacts associated with the construction of the Project require 24.16 mitigation credits based on the Everglades Mitigation Bank (EMB) Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review (W.A.T.E.R.) assessment method. FPL proposes that 7 mitigation credits of functional enhancement be performed by FPL within the immediate area, on the project site, including approximately 66.36 acres of wetland enhancement and creation. The transfer and preservation of 307.86 acres of mangrove-dominated property adjacent to Biscayne National Park would generate an additional 8.37 credits of mitigation, according to the most conservative calculation methodology [Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) Basis of Review mitigation ratios]. An additional 8.99 credits are proposed to be purchased from the EMB. These credits result from approximately 63 acres of restored saline wetlands that would be managed and protected in perpetuity. The total mitigation package provides 24.36 credits, and includes over 430 acres of enhanced, restored, or preserved wetlands offered to offset the 24.32 acres of direct impact (including permanent and temporary). A summary of the impacts and mitigation proposed is presented in Table ES-1.

In addition to the proposed mitigation package, FPL proposes to perform additional onsite enhancement to increase the quality of habitats surrounding the Project. Additional wetland enhancement activities conducted on-site may be expected to generate an additional 5.62 credits above and beyond that which is required to offset impacts. These enhancements further support the American Crocodile, essential fish habitat, and native seagrasses as well as many other listed species of wildlife, but are not proposed to be included in the accounting for Project mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation package and additional enhancement activities represent a unique combination of enhancement, preservation, and restoration to offset unavoidable wetland impacts while still Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 ES-2 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc fulfilling future electrical power demands. A summary of additional enhancement activities and potential mitigation credits generated is presented in Table ES-2.

Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Functional Functional Assessment Score Site Credit Pre- Post- Suitability Units Area/Activity Acres develop develop Multiplier (FCUs)

Direct Impacts Impact FCU -

A (power block) 16.38 0.92 0 1.07 -16.12 D-east (temporary access road) 0.77 0.89 0 1.07 -0.73 D-west (temporary construction laydown and 4.57 0.71 0 1.07 -3.47 parking)

E (permanent parking area) 2.2 0.84 0 1.07 -1.98 Green Creek Re-creation 0.12 0.92 0.45 1.07 -0.06 Green Creek West Fork Re-creation 0.273 0.92 0.45 1.07 -0.14 Scout Lagoon - tidal creek connections 0.009 0.92 0.45 1.07 -0.004 Total Direct Impacts 24.32 -22.50 Secondary Impacts (Unless noted, credits calculated as 60 percent of direct impact.)

A 0.99 0.92 0 1.07 -0.58 D-east 0.50 0.89 0 1.07 -0.29 D-west 0.67 0.71 0 1.07 -0.31 H-east (calculated using 0.06 loss of 7.5 0.89 0.83 1.07 -0.48 functional value/acre)

TOTAL CREDITS (Direct + Secondary) -24.16 MITIGATION PROPOSAL Onsite Mitigation (7 credits) Mitigation FCU +

D-mid 36.34 0.76 0.86 1.07 +2.52a D-north 13.95 0.79 0.86 1.07 +0.67b Australian Pine Ribs 1 and 2 5.6 0 0.75 1.05 +2.68c Australian Pine Ribs 1.35 0 0.45 1.05 +0.40d 3 & 4 -Wetland Creation Australian Pine Ribs 3, 4 and 5 -Upland 8.05 0 0.25 1.05 +0.41e Restoration Scout Lagoon Re-creation (Red Barn Area) 1.07 0 0.80 1.07 +0.32f Offsite Mitigation (17.36 credits)

Property Preservation Transfer - East of 47.5 NA NA NA +3.17 L-31E Property Preservation Transfer - West of 260.36 NA NA NA +5.2 L-31E Purchase from EMB 63 NA NA NA +8.99 MITIGATION TOTAL 437.22 +24.36 a

Total credits (3.89) divided by Time Lag and Risk of 1.54 (=2 yr.TL X 1.5R) b Total credits (1.04) divided by Time Lag and Risk of 1.54 (=2 yr.TL X 1.5R) c Total credits (4.59) divided by Time Lag and Risk of 1.71 (=5 yr.TL X 1.5R) d Total credits (0.64) divided by Time Lag and Risk of 1.605 (=3yr.TL X 1.5R) e Total credits (2.1) divided by upland restoration factor (3) and Time Lag and Risk of 1.71 (=5yr.TL X 1.5R) f Total credits (0.92) divided by Time Lag and Risk of 2.85 (=5yr.TL X 2.5R)

Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 ES-3 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc Table ES-2. Additional Onsite Enhancement Summary FCU +

Functional Assessment Score Site Generated through Pre- Post- Suitability Enhancement I

Area I Acres I enhancement I enhancement I Multiplier I Activity I C-east 11.47 0.78 0.80 1.06 +0.24 C-west 16.77 0.71 0.79 1.06 +1.42 D-west Replanting 4.57 0 0.68 1.06 +3.29 D-east Replanting 0.77 0 0.68 1.06 +0.56 Red Barn Tree Preserve 0.905 0 0.30 1.07 +0.29 TOTAL 34.49 +5.80 Table ES-3. Mitigation and Additional Onsite Enhancement Summary Table Functional Assessment Score Site Total FCU +

Pre- Post- Suitability Mitigation &

Area Mitigation Total (Table ES-1)

IAcres 437.22 I enhancement enhancement Multiplier Enhancement 24.36 Additional Enhancement 34.49 5.80 (Table ES-2)

TOTAL I 471.71 I 30.16 TIME LAG AND RISK Additional mitigation credits have been calculated to address time lag and risk associated with the proposed creation, enhancement, and restoration activities. The time lag associated with mitigation activities addresses the period of time between when the functions are lost at an impact site and when those functions are replaced through mitigation. Wetland creation generally has a greater time lag to establish certain wetland functions than most enhancement activities. The time lag, in years, is used to determine the time lag factor (T-factor) to reflect the additional mitigation needed to account for the delay in replacement of wetland functions. Mitigation risk accounts for the degree of uncertainty that the proposed mitigation activity will achieve the proposed conditions. Typically, mitigation projects which require longer periods of time to replace lost functions are considered to have a higher risk. Risk is scored on a scale from 1 (de minimus risk) to 3 (high risk). Time lag and risk factors for the proposed mitigation activities are discussed below. Offsite mitigation through the purchase of credits from the EMB already incorporates time lag and risk in the calculation of credits available for purchase. Similarly, the preservation of wetland acreage adjacent to the BNP does not include significant risk or lag time.

Area D Hydrologic Enhancement The time lag and risk factor for the hydrologic enhancement of Area D was calculated to be 1.545.

The T-factor is 1.03, based upon a 2-year lag between installation of the culverts and realization of Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 ES-4 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc the functional lift associated with amelioration of hypersaline conditions, an increase in tidal flushing and connectivity with Biscayne Bay, and the resultant increase in mangrove biomass. The risk factor is 1.5, due to the low probability of enhancement failure.

Test Cooling Canal Berm Wetland Creation The time lag and risk factor for the creation of wetlands upon the upland Test cooling Canal Berms 1 and 2 was determined to be 1.71. The T-factor is 1.14, based upon a 5-year lag between topographic grading and installation of wetland shrubs and realization of the functional lift. The risk factor is 1.5, due to the high probability of successful wetland shrub habitat creation within the surrounding test cooling canals.

The time lag and risk factor for the creation of wetland refugia for the American crocodile juveniles upon Test Cooling Canal Berms 3 and 4 was determined to be 1.605. The T-factor is 3 years, based upon the lack of wetland plantings. The freshwater refugia are designed to maximize open water areas, and will be allowed to vegetate with naturally-recruited herbaceous species. Periodic removal of exotic and non-desirable species will be conducted as necessary. The risk factor was determined to be 1.5.

Test cooling Canal Berm Upland Restoration The time lag and risk factor for the upland restoration of Test Cooling Canal Berms 3, 4, and 5 was calculated to be 1.71. The T-factor is 1.14, based upon a 5-year lag between topographic grading and realization of the functional lift. No vegetative plantings are proposed, but the area will be allowed to naturally revegetate with desirable upland species. Periodic exotic and nuisance species removal will be conducted to maintain the habitat. The risk factor is 1.5, due to the relatively high probability of successful upland habitat creation upon the Test Cooling Canal Berms. Application of the upland to wetland conversion ratio (3:1) was utilized to calculate the overall credits generated through upland restoration.

Scout Lagoon Creation The time lag and risk factor for the creation of the Scout Lagoon was calculated to be 2.85. The T-factor is 1.14, based upon a 5-year lag between creation of the lagoon and realization of the functional lift. The risk factor is 2.5, due to the potential difficulty in creation of the lagoon and installation of seagrasses within an area that is currently upland habitat.

Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 i 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

.............................................................................................................. ES-1 SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 3 2.1 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 3 2.2 RESULTS..................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 AREA A (POWER BLOCK AND COLLECTOR YARD)............................ 4 2.2.2 TIDAL CREEK CONNECTION (GREEN CREEK AND GREEN CREEK WEST FORK)................................................................................... 4 2.2.3 TIDAL CREEK CONNECTION - SCOUT LAGOON ................................. 5 2.2.4 AREA D (TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LAYDOWN, PARKING AND TRAILERS, ACCESS ROAD)........................................... 5 2.2.5 AREA E (PERMANENT PARKING)............................................................ 6 2.2.6 SECONDARY IMPACTS .............................................................................. 6 3.0 MITIGATION PLAN................................................................................................................ 9 3.1 ONSITE MITIGATION PLAN.................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 AREA D-MID ENHANCEMENT.................................................................. 9 3.1.2 AREA D-NORTH ENHANCEMENT.......................................................... 10 3.1.3 RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT OF TEST COOLING CANAL BERMS ......................................................................................................... 11 3.1.4 SCOUT LAGOON CREATION................................................................... 12 3.1.5 TIME LAG AND RISK ................................................................................ 13 3.1.6 ONSITE MITIGATION

SUMMARY

.......................................................... 15 3.2 OFFSITE MITIGATION - TRANSFER OF MANGROVE-DOMINATED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BNP........................................................................... 15 3.2.1 ERP BASIS OF REVIEW (PRESERVATION) ........................................... 16 3.2.2 UMAM .......................................................................................................... 17 3.2.3 W.A.T.E.R..................................................................................................... 19 3.2.4 PRESERVATION ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

- MANGROVE-DOMINATED PROPERTY ......................................................................... 19 3.2.5 OFFSITE MITIGATION - PURCHASE OF CREDITS FROM THE EVERGLADES MITIGATION BANK........................................................ 19 3.3 MITIGATION

SUMMARY

...................................................................................... 20 3.4 ADDITIONAL ONSITE ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES...................................... 20 3.4.1 AREA C ENHANCEMENT ......................................................................... 21 3.4.2 AREA D REPLANTING .............................................................................. 22 3.4.3 RED BARN TREE PRESERVE................................................................... 23 3.5 SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................................................................................... 23 3.6 LONG TERM ASSURANCE .................................................................................... 23 3.6.1 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES....................................................................... 23 3.6.2 PRESERVATION......................................................................................... 23

4.0 CONCLUSION

....................................................................................................................... 25 Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 ii 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd)

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Expansion Project Wetland Impact Siting Process Figure 2. Final Project Design - Overall View Figure 3. Final Project Design - East Figure 4. Final Project Design - West Figure 5. Wetland Identification Map Figure 6. Vegetation Analysis Figure 7. Onsite Mitigation Plan Figure 8. Test Cooling Berms Onsite Mitigation Plan Figure 9. Test Cooling Berms Onsite Mitigation Plan, Existing Conditions Ribs 1 and 2 Figure 10. Test Cooling Berms Onsite Mitigation Plan, Existing Conditions Ribs 3, 4, and 5 Figure 11. Proposed Laydown Area for Construction Figure 12. Area A Green Creeks Onsite Mitigation Figure 13. Area G Scout Lagoon Onsite Mitigation Figure 14 A through C. Aerial Maps, Adjacent Mitigation (Preservation) Areas LIST OF APPENDICES A W.A.T.E.R. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SCORING B SCOUT LAGOON CREATION AND SEAGRASS RESTORATION PLAN C UMAM AND W.A.T.E.R. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SCORING FOR PRESERVATION OF MANGROVE-DOMINATED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE L-31E LEVEE D CULVERT DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS E MITIGATION SUCCESS CRITERIA F FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COMMITMENT LETTER TO ACOE Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 iii 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers BNP Biscayne National Park CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan DERM Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management EMB Everglades Mitigation Bank EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERP Environmental Resource Permitting F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code FCU Functional Credit Unit FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FPL Florida Power & Light Company ft foot lf linear foot NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPS National Park Service SFWMD South Florida Water Management District W.A.T.E.R. Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review WRAP Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 1 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) proposes to build a natural gas-fired, combined cycle power generation plant on FPL property, immediately adjacent to the existing fossil power plant. The Project has been described in the Site Certification and Federal Dredge and Fill Applications submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), respectively, on November 14, 2003. In consultation with regulatory agencies, including the FDEP, National Park Service (NPS), ACOE, Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the Project design team explored further refinements to the Project to avoid and/or minimize wetland impacts. The proposed design modifications have significantly reduced the total acreage of direct wetland impacts from 36.94 acres originally proposed in the Site Certification and Dredge and Fill Applications to 24.32 acres. Temporary wetland impacts would comprise 5.34 acres of the total, which would result in a total of 18.98 acres of permanent impact upon restoration.

The proposed Project design revisions include the removal of the proposed stormwater pond in Area C located to the southwest of the power block, minimization of wetland impact acreage proposed for construction laydown and parking within Area D-west, removal of the oil storage tank and its secondary containment from a wetland location to an upland location, and avoidance of wetlands originally designated for proposed construction laydown and parking areas in Area D-east (Figure 1).

The proposed Project refinements would result in 16.38 acres of impact to shrub and dwarf red mangrove wetlands within the power block (Area A), 0.77 acres of hypersaline mangrove marsh associated with the roadway expansion (Area D-east), 4.57 acres of dwarf red mangrove marsh for temporary construction parking and laydown within Area D-west, 2.2 acres of mangroves for permanent parking adjacent to the plant access road (Area E), 0.12 acres of wetlands to tidal creek known as the Green Creek re-creation, 0.006 acres of dwarf red mangrove marsh to establish a tidal creek connection for the re-created Area A lagoon in the upland Girl Scout Camp location, and 0.273 acres of dwarf red mangrove marsh to connect the tidal creek flowing southwest from the Area A lagoon toward Area C. Figures 2, 3, and 4 represent the final project design; Figure 2 is an Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 2 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc overall view, while Figures 3 and 4 are close up views of the east and west sides of the Project Area, respectively. The total direct impacts (permanent and temporary) resulting from construction of the Project would be 24.32 acres. To compensate for impacts to wetland areas adjacent to the expansion area, secondary impact acreage have been assessed at a minimum of 25 feet (ft) surrounding all fill activities.

The FPL-owned Everglades Mitigation Bank (EMB) is within the same watershed drainage basin as the proposed impacts and could be relied upon to offset all proposed unavoidable wetland impacts through the purchase of mitigation credits. However, upon consultation with regulatory agencies it was agreed that FPL was in a position to provide a unique combination of on and offsite mitigation activities due to their significant land holdings in the vicinity of the Biscayne National Park (BNP) and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) project areas. FPL has proposed a mitigation plan to compensate for direct (permanent and temporary) and secondary impacts through a combination of onsite wetland enhancement and restoration, transferring the offsite mangrove-dominated property adjacent to the BNP to the SFWMD and BNP for preservation, and purchasing the remaining mitigation credits from the EMB.

Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 3 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc 2.0 FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT 2.1 METHODOLOGY Rather than an acre-for-acre mitigation or the use of mitigation ratios, the calculation of mitigation requirements involved the use of a wetland functional assessment value multiplied by the acreage of impact to determine the required number of mitigation credits.

The EMB functional assessment protocol, Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review (W.A.T.E.R.), is similar to the ACOEs Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) and FDEPs Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), but is designed to be directly applicable to the conditions present in southeast Florida. The FDEP's UMAM, effective February 2004, is designed to be used for wetland habitats occurring throughout the state, and therefore is not considered as sensitive to the regional environmental conditions present in southeastern Florida when compared to W.A.T.E.R. Furthermore, to assess impact sites for the purpose of determining mitigation credits, the applicant must use the functional assessment methodology approved for the particular mitigation bank, as described in the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)

Chapter 62-345.100(6).

The FDEPs UMAM functional assessment method provides quantification of the number of credits that are generated through the preservation of saline-based wetlands. As part of the mitigation package to offset unavoidable impacts associated with the Project, FPL will transfer 307.86 acres of adjacent mangrove-dominated property to BNP for preservation.

2.2 RESULTS The proposed footprint of the Turkey Point Expansion Project was subdivided into assessment areas, determined by considering the functional parameters that make one area different from another. In some instances geographical barriers such as roadways or berms were the deciding factors in determining an assessment area, while in other instances the vegetation or hydrologic influences were the main factor in determining an assessment areas size or location.

Once each assessment area was determined, field personnel conducted site investigations to gather information to record the qualities (function) of the wetland (Figure 5). This work was performed during a series of site visits that occurred between July and November 2003. The information Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 4 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc gathered includes wildlife usage, hydrologic conditions, water quality, vegetative composition and species diversity, salinity, and soils. The existing, pre-development condition was evaluated with regards to each assessment category: fish and wildlife functions, vegetative functions, hydrologic functions, and salinity parameters. Scoring for the suite of variables contained within each assessment category and the site suitability evaluation is detailed in Appendix A. The following summarizes the resulting pre-development functional values, acreage of impact, and mitigation credits required for wetlands within each Project Area:

2.2.1 AREA A (POWER BLOCK AND COLLECTOR YARD)

This area is a mosaic of habitat which includes two tidal creek tributaries, an artificially created lagoon, and the surrounding dwarf red mangrove flats (Figure 6). This area is a high-quality wetland, in part due to the lagoons artificial open water component, which enables this wetland assessment area to receive a very high score of 0.92 W.A.T.E.R. function (see Appendix A). Based upon the functional assessment, acreage of impact (16.38), and site suitability multiplier (1.07),

development of this area should require 16.12 credits of mitigation. Additional impacts associated with Area A include the reconnection of the tidal creek flowing southwest toward Area C, discussed below.

2.2.2 TIDAL CREEK CONNECTION (GREEN CREEK AND GREEN CREEK WEST FORK)

The tidal creek connection that the existing lagoon currently provides will be re-established through the creation of Green Creek, which would comprise 0.12 acres of wetland impacts. When multiplied by the functional assessment score (0.92) and site suitability multiplier (1.07), the resulting number of credits is 0.06 credits, conservatively calculated using a post-development W.A.T.E.R. score of 0.45. To maintain the hydrologic functions provided by the tidal creek extending southwest from the Area A lagoon to Area C, 0.273 acres would be impacted to create a creek channel (Green Creek West Fork) connecting to the undisturbed portion of the tidal creek following construction of the power block (Figures 7 and 12). Although establishment of the Green Creek West Fork would impact additional acreage of mangroves, the maintenance of tidal creek connectivity is important in regards to improving tidal flushing throughout the Project Area. Currently, the Area A mangrove marsh receives a W.A.T.E.R. score of 0.92. It can be conservatively assumed that the Green Creek West Fork connection would achieve a post-development W.A.T.E.R. score of 0.45; therefore, the required mitigation for the loss of wetland function should be 0.14 credits, assessed as the difference Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 5 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc between the pre- and post-development functional assessment scores (0.47) multiplied by the acreage of impact (0.273) and site suitability multiplier (1.07).

2.2.3 TIDAL CREEK CONNECTION - SCOUT LAGOON Although the lagoon is an artificial open water feature excavated during initial plant construction, it provides important habitat for fish and wildlife and is proposed to be re-created to maintain the diversity of habitat for fish and wildlife that currently exists at the Site following completion of the Project. Two locations for the re-creation were evaluated; the preferred location, Scout Lagoon, was selected based upon consultation with regulatory agency representatives (Figures 7 and 13). The preferred location was designed to minimize mangrove wetland impacts through re-creation of the lagoon via excavation of uplands within Area G at the northwestern tip of the Red Barn peninsula in the vicinity of the Girl Scout camp. Creating two tidal connections of Scout Lagoon with the existing tidal creek immediately northwest of the upland peninsula would require 37 linear feet (lf) of mangrove disturbance with a width of 10 ft, approximately 0.009 acre. Using an initial WA.T.E.R. functional assessment score of 0.92, the acreage of impact (0.009), and site suitability multiplier (1.07), the resulting number of mitigation credits to offset the loss of mangroves to connect the Scout Lagoon with the tidal creek is 0.003, conservatively calculated using a post-development W.A.T.E.R. score of 0.45.

Alternatively, re-creation of the lagoon immediately north of its existing location, north of the proposed power block Area A, would have required 1.74 acres of mangrove wetland impact (Green Lagoon). Through consultation with regulatory agencies, it was determined that mitigation for the lagoon would be best achieved through the Scout Lagoon alternative, which replaces wetland functions while minimizing mangrove impacts. The acreage of impact, functional assessment, and resulting mitigation credits required are described later in this document.

2.2.4 AREA D (TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LAYDOWN, PARKING AND TRAILERS, ACCESS ROAD)

Construction laydown, parking, trailers, and new plant access road would impact approximately 4.57 acres within Area D west of the transmission line patrol road (Area D-west) and 0.77 acres within Area D east of the patrol road (Area D-east) (Figures 7 and 11). Construction of the patrol road has hydrologically isolated the parcel west of the road; therefore, separate functional assessment scores were calculated for the mangrove wetlands east and west of the patrol road. The Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 6 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc area east of the patrol road is dwarf red mangrove marsh contiguous with Area A, with a resulting W.A.T.E.R. score of 0.89 (see Appendix A). The area west of the patrol road is isolated from Area A and does not experience adequate flushing due to the elevated patrol road. As a result of the decreased flushing, salinity west of the patrol road is higher, mangroves are less dense, groundcover is sparser, and the area provides lower quality habitat for fish and wildlife. The resulting W.A.T.E.R. score for the area west of the patrol road is 0.71 (see Appendix A). Based upon the functional assessment, acreage of impact, and Site Suitability Multiplier (1.07), the construction laydown, parking, trailers, and access road area should require a total of 4.2 credits of mitigation (0.73 credits for Area D-east, 3.47 credits for Area D-west).

2.2.5 AREA E (PERMANENT PARKING)

Area E, located between the existing plant access road and the Area D-west mangrove marsh, contains mature mangrove and buttonwood trees (Figure 11). The permanent parking area would impact 2.20 acres of mangroves within Area E, which received a W.A.T.E.R. functional assessment score of 0.84 (see Appendix A). Based upon the functional assessment, acreage of impact, and Site Suitability Multiplier (1.07), a total of 1.98 credits should be required for mitigation.

Direct Impacts Area Direct W.A.T.E.R. W.A.T.E.R. Site Direct Impact Impact Score: Pre- Score: Post- Suitability Mitigation Acreage development development Multiplier Credits Required I I I I I I I A 16.38 0.92 0 1.07 16.12 D-east 0.77 0.89 0 1.07 0.73 D-west 4.57 0.71 0 1.07 3.47 E (Permanent 2.2 0.84 0 1.07 1.98 Parking Area)

Green Creek 0.12 0.92 0.45 1.07 0.06 Re-creation Green Creek 0.273 0.92 0.45 1.07 0.14 West Fork Scout Lagoon 0.009 0.92 0.45 1.07 0.004 TOTAL 24.32 22.50 2.2.6 SECONDARY IMPACTS To compensate for impacts to wetland areas adjacent to the expansion area, additional mitigation is proposed to compensate for changes to wetland function surrounding the immediate wetland fill impacts. Calculation of secondary impact acreage may be assessed at a minimum of 25 ft Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 7 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc surrounding all fill activities. Calculating the minimum 25 ft of surrounding secondary impact would require an additional 0.99 acre of impact adjacent to Area A, 0.50 acre adjacent to eastern Area D, and 0.67 acre adjacent to western Area D. It can be assumed that a loss of functional value can be assessed at 50 percent within the edge effect zone of 25 ft. For a level of assurance, a loss of function equivalent to 60 percent has been used to calculate secondary impact mitigation requirements for this application. Therefore, for each wetland parcel, mitigation credits required to offset secondary impact acreage were calculated as 60 percent of the credits that would be required to offset direct impact acreage. Based upon the 25-ft secondary impact zone acreages, each wetland parcel's corresponding W.A.T.E.R. score, and the site suitability multiplier, 1.18 credits of mitigation should be required. In addition to the 25-ft zone adjacent to all areas of wetland fill, additional secondary impacts were identified and quantified. As a result of the proposed construction activity and the filling of wetlands within Area A, undisturbed areas of wetlands within Area H to the east of Area A and adjacent to the upland Red Barn area would experience hydrologic secondary impacts. It can be expected that there would be a functional loss of 0.48 credits for this 7.5 acres of dwarf mangrove marsh as a result of construction activities. Therefore, the total amount of mitigation required for secondary impacts is 1.66.

Secondary Impacts Secondary W.A.T.E.R. W.A.T.E.R. Site Secondary Impact Impact Score: Pre- Score: Post- Suitability Mitigation Credits I Area I Acreage I development I development I Multiplier I Required* I A 0.99 0.92 0 1.07 0.58 D-east 0.50 0.89 0 1.07 0.29 D-west 0.67 0.71 0 1.07 0.31 H-east 7.5 0.89 0.83 1.07 0.48 (calculated using 0.06 loss of functional value/acre)

TOTAL 10.7 1.66

• Unless otherwise noted, credits for mitigation of secondary impacts calculated as 60 percent of functional loss of direct impact.

As calculated, there should be a total of 24.16 mitigation credits required to offset wetland impacts associated with the construction of the expansion project, 22.50 credits for direct (permanent and temporary) unavoidable wetland impacts and 1.66 credits for secondary impacts. It should be noted that no attempt has been made to adjust mitigation credits FPL could demonstrate for the restoration Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 8 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc of temporary parking/laydown areas, including installing the last culvert through the access/patrol road of this area.

Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 9 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc 3.0 MITIGATION PLAN The EMB is within the same watershed drainage basin as the proposed impacts and could be relied upon to offset all proposed unavoidable wetland impacts through the purchase of 24.16 mitigation credits. However, due to FPLs large land holdings in the area, there is an opportunity to offer a variety of mitigation activities that would not only offset the Projects wetland impacts, but benefit the BNP and CERP projects. FPL has proposed a mitigation plan to compensate for direct and secondary impacts, involving a combination of wetland enhancement through onsite hydrological improvements; wetland restoration through removal of exotics, grading, and replanting; transfer of 307.86 acres of mangrove-dominated property adjacent to the BNP for preservation; and purchase of the remaining mitigation credits from the EMB.

3.1 ONSITE MITIGATION PLAN The goal of the onsite hydrological improvements is to restore a more natural hydrologic regime through the addition of several culverts that would improve connectivity between each wetland parcel and Biscayne Bay. The installation of culverts would enhance tidal flushing and circulation functions that have been previously impacted. Onsite wetland restoration activities involve an area of upland spoil pile ribs associated with the pilot program cooling canals west of the Project Area, two of which are proposed to be cleared of exotic species, graded to saturated soil elevation, and planted with native wetland species. The number of mitigation credits generated through onsite mitigation activities has been adjusted to compensate for time lag and risk factors, discussed in Section 3.1.5. A description of the proposed onsite wetland mitigation conceptual design, post-mitigation functional values, and total mitigation credits gained through onsite enhancement and restoration is presented in the sections that follow.

3.1.1 AREA D-MID ENHANCEMENT To restore hydrologic connectivity with Biscayne Bay between Area D-mid and the undisturbed mangrove marsh to the east, a series of nine 24-inch vertebrae culverts will be installed through the transmission line patrol road currently impeding water circulation (Figure 7). The patrol road separates the eastern and western portions of the mangrove marsh north of the Project Area, and only one small culvert perforates the roadway to maintain a tidal creek connecting the eastern and western parcels. The existing culvert allows saltwater to enter the 36.34-acre Area D-mid parcel but is inadequate to allow the retreat of saltwater with low tide. The result is steadily increasing salinity Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 10 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc when rainfall is insufficient to assist flushing. The existing round culvert connecting the tidal creek underneath the patrol road is proposed to be replaced by a larger culvert. In addition, the installation of a series of culverts underneath the patrol road north and south of the existing tidal creek culvert at topographic lows would allow a more even distribution of rising and falling tide upon this saline wetland area.

The W.A.T.E.R. functional score for area D-mid is 0.76 (see Appendix A). The functional score is a reflection of diminished wetland functions as a result of the elevated saline conditions and reduced flushing for this area. It can reasonably be expected that after the replacement of the existing undersized culvert and installation of eight additional 24-inch vertebrae culverts, the functional value of Area D-mid would improve to 0.86 as a result of increased health of the dwarf red mangrove and the subsequent increase of forage fish and macroinvertebrates. These increased forage species should promote increased utilization of wading birds as well. Utilizing the difference between the pre-and post- mitigation W.A.T.E.R. functional score (0.10), Site Suitability Multiplier (1.07), and acreage of enhancement (36.34), the functional lift associated with enhancing Area D-mid is 3.89 redits. When divided by the time lag and risk factor (1.54), the total number of credits generated is 2.52. Appendix D contains the culvert design specifications, including signed and sealed plan and cross-section views of a typical culvert and the large replacement culvert.

3.1.2 AREA D-NORTH ENHANCEMENT This red mangrove-dominated wetland historically was connected to Biscayne Bay through the tidal influences of two creeks. The northern most creek has been reconnected with the installation of a culvert through the access roadway. The second southern tidal creek is still cut off from the flushing of saline water derived from Biscayne Bay. The result is slightly elevated chloride levels that may diminish the historic functions of this assessment area. It has been scored using W.A.T.E.R. and received a functional score of 0.79 and a site suitability score of 1.07. Placing a culvert within the footprint location of the southern tidal creek would complete a cycle of flushing for this area and therefore would reduce the isolation and elevated chloride levels (Figure 7). Following the culvert installation, the W.A.T.E.R. functional score can be expected to increase to 0.86. Utilizing the assessment acreage (13.95), lift per acre (0.07), and Site Suitability Multiplier, this mitigation activity would generate 1.04 mitigation credits. This lift can be attributed to the increased health of the dwarf red mangrove and the subsequent increase of forage fish and macroinvertebrates, which Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 11 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc should also promote increased utilization by wading birds. When divided by the time lag and risk factor, a total of 0.67 credits are generated through hydrologic enhancement of area D-north.

3.1.3 RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT OF TEST COOLING CANAL BERMS To the southwest of the Project Area are located a series of five upland spoil deposit berms (ribs) and canals constructed in the late 1960s early 1970s as a pilot program testing the efficiency of cooling canals. The upland ribs are dominated by the exotic species Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), which provide a seed source for the infestation of other natural areas (Figure 8). FPL proposes to remove the exotic Australian pine and spoil berm from the easternmost two ribs (Ribs 1 and 2) to an elevation 4 inches above the seasonal high-water elevation. This elevation would remain saturated during the rainy season and allow native wetland species to be planted, such as buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). Following removal of exotics, topographical grading, and planting, the area would be monitored for a period of 5 years to ensure survival of native wetland species and the successful removal of exotic species (Figures 8, 9, and 10). The acreage of the two upland spoil pile ribs totals 5.6 acres, with a current W.A.T.E.R. functional assessment score of 0 and Site Suitability Multiplier of 1.05. It can be reasonably expected that the areas function may attain a functional score of 0.78 after 5 years of maintenance and growth. Therefore, this restoration activity may contribute an additional 4.59 credits of mitigation to offset impacts associated with the expansion project. When divided by the time lag and risk factor (1.71), the creation of wetland habitat upon Ribs 1 and 2 will generate 2.68 credits of mitigation.

Additional enhancement activities proposed within the test cooling canal berms (Ribs) are designed to benefit the federally-endangered American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) and the Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), as well as provide additional wetland functional lift. Ribs 3 and 4 are to be enhanced to provide additional suitable habitat for the crocodile, while the westernmost Rib 5 would be enhanced to improve habitat suitability for the Eastern indigo snake (Figures 8 and 10). In both cases, upland areas will be restored through eradication of exotic species and maintenance to discourage proliferation of nuisance/exotic vegetation.

Following removal of Australian pine, Ribs 3 and 4 will be graded to include depressional wetland areas that would provide freshwater refugia for juvenile crocodiles. Creation of freshwater refugia upon the test cooling canal berms will provide juvenile crocodiles with suitable habitat for avoidance Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 12 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc of hypersaline water found in the cooling canal system as well as aid in reduction of predation during their early life stages. Ribs 3 and 4 comprise a total of 6.3 acres, 1.35 of which are proposed to be graded as depressional wetlands. It can be conservatively estimated that the created freshwater wetlands may reach a W.A.T.E.R. functional assessment score of 0.45, which when multiplied by the acreage (1.35) and Site Suitability Multiplier (1.05), would generate 0.64 credits of mitigation.

When divided by the time lag and risk factor (1.605), the resultant number of mitigation credits generated is 0.40.

To improve conditions for the Eastern indigo snake, Rib 5 would be cleared of exotics and allowed to re-vegetate naturally from the seed bank to provide upland habitat suitable for the indigo snake.

Exotic species maintenance would be conducted to eradicate any re-growth of nuisance and/or exotics within all five of the test cooling canal berms. The improvement of adjacent upland habitats through removal of exotic species benefits adjacent wetlands through enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and increases their overall functional value. Rib 5 contains 3.1 acres of uplands, while Ribs 3 and 4 would be designed with 4.95 acres of restored uplands. Using a W.A.T.E.R.

functional lift score of 0.25 for enhancement of upland habitat adjacent to wetlands, the total acreage of restored uplands (8.05), and the Site Suitability Multiplier (1.05), a total of 2.1 credits of mitigation may be generated through upland restoration. Application of the upland restoration factor (3) and time lag and risk factor (1.71) results in a total of 0.41 mitigation credits generated through upland restoration.

3.1.4 SCOUT LAGOON CREATION Creation of the lagoon within the Girl Scout camp area of the Red Barn peninsula, a filled upland area previously utilized for public recreation, would be achieved through excavation of uplands at the northwestern tip of the Red Barn peninsula (Figure 13). This Scout Lagoon would be designed to connect with the historic tidal creek located immediately west of the upland peninsula at the northwestern and southwestern edges of the newly created lagoon, which would provide tidal flushing and wildlife access through the open water habitat. An important aspect of the Area A lagoon is that it provides 2,958 lf of shoreline. The Scout Lagoon and Green Creek connection would provide 2,560 lf of shoreline, nearly identical to the amount currently existing within the Area A lagoon, with greatly reduced wetland impact.

Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 13 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc In addition to maintaining the tidal connection with Biscayne Bay and providing a similar amount of shoreline habitat, sediments will be transplanted from the existing lagoon and the Scout Lagoon will be planted with seagrasses to replace the loss of 1.2 acres of seagrass associated with the existing Area A lagoon. Detailed information regarding the construction and planting of the Scout Lagoon is included in Appendix B.

Using the acreage of created lagoon (1.07), an initial WA.T.E.R. functional assessment score of 0, a post-development W.A.T.E.R. functional assessment score of 0.80, and site suitability multiplier (1.07), the resulting number of mitigation credits generated through creation of the Scout Lagoon is 0.92. When divided by the time lag and risk adjustment factor (2.85), the resultant number of credits is 0.32.

3.1.5 TIME LAG AND RISK Additional mitigation credits have been calculated to address time lag and risk associated with the proposed creation, enhancement, and restoration activities. The time lag associated with mitigation activities addresses the period of time between when the functions are lost at an impact site and when those functions are replaced through mitigation. Wetland creation generally has a greater time lag to establish certain wetland functions than most enhancement activities. The time lag, in years, is used to determine the time lag factor (T-factor) to reflect the additional mitigation needed to account for the delay in replacement of wetland functions. Mitigation risk accounts for the degree of uncertainty that the proposed mitigation activity will achieve the proposed conditions. Typically, mitigation projects which require longer periods of time to replace lost functions are considered to have a higher risk. Risk is scored on a scale from 1 (de minimus risk) to 3 (high risk). Time lag and risk factors for the proposed mitigation activities are discussed below. Offsite mitigation through the purchase of credits from the EMB already incorporates time lag and risk in the calculation of credits available for purchase. Similarly, the preservation of wetland acreage adjacent to the BNP does not include significant risk or lag time.

Area D Hydrologic Enhancement The time lag and risk factor for the hydrologic enhancement of Area D was calculated to be 1.545.

The T-factor is 1.03, based upon a 2-year lag between installation of the culverts and realization of the functional lift associated with amelioration of hypersaline conditions, an increase in tidal flushing Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 14 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc and connectivity with Biscayne Bay, and the resultant increase in mangrove biomass. The risk factor is 1.5, due to the low probability of enhancement failure.

Test Cooling Canal Berm Wetland Creation The time lag and risk factor for the creation of wetlands upon the upland Test cooling Canal Berms 1 and 2 was determined to be 1.71. The T-factor is 1.14, based upon a 5-year lag between topographic grading and installation of wetland shrubs and realization of the functional lift. The risk factor is 1.5, due to the high probability of successful wetland shrub habitat creation within the surrounding test cooling canals.

The time lag and risk factor for the creation of wetland refugia for the American crocodile juveniles upon Test Cooling Canal Berms 3 and 4 was determined to be 1.605. The T-factor is 3 years, based upon the lack of wetland plantings. The freshwater refugia are designed to maximize open water areas, and will be allowed to vegetate with naturally-recruited herbaceous species. Periodic removal of exotic and non-desirable species will be conducted as necessary. The risk factor was determined to be 1.5.

Test cooling Canal Berm Upland Restoration The time lag and risk factor for the upland restoration of Test Cooling Canal Berms 3, 4, and 5 was calculated to be 1.71. The T-factor is 1.14, based upon a 5-year lag between topographic grading and realization of the functional lift. No vegetative plantings are proposed, but the area will be allowed to naturally revegetate with desirable upland species. Periodic exotic and nuisance species removal will be conducted to maintain the habitat. The risk factor is 1.5, due to the relatively high probability of successful upland habitat creation upon the Test Cooling Canal Berms. Application of the upland to wetland conversion ratio (3:1) was utilized to calculate the overall credits generated through upland restoration.

Scout Lagoon Creation The time lag and risk factor for the creation of the Scout Lagoon was calculated to be 2.85. The T-factor is 1.14, based upon a 5-year lag between creation of the lagoon and realization of the functional lift. The risk factor is 2.5, due to the potential difficulty in creation of the lagoon and installation of seagrasses within an area that is currently upland habitat.

Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 15 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc 3.1.6 ONSITE MITIGATION

SUMMARY

The cumulative lift generated from the hydrologic improvements to undisturbed wetlands onsite, restoration of the Test Cooling Canal Berms, and creation of the Scout Lagoon is 7 credits. This amount of onsite mitigation equals 29 percent of the total mitigation requirements remaining onsite and within the same drainage basin. The remaining mitigation credits (17.16) would be acquired through offsite mitigation activities, including preservation of the mangrove habitat adjacent to the BNP north of the Project Area and purchase of mitigation credits from the EMB, Phases 1 and 2.

Onsite Mitigation Summary Credits Pre- Post- Generated mitigation mitigation Site Through W.A.T.E.R. W.A.T.E.R. Suitability Time Lag Onsite Area Acreage Score Score Multiplier and Risk Mitigation D-mid 36.34 0.76 0.86 1.07 1.54 2.52 D-north 13.95 0.79 0.86 1.07 1.54 0.67 Australian Pine 5.6 0 0.75 1.05 1.71 2.68 Ribs 1 and 2 Australian Pine 1.35 0 0.45 1.05 1.605 0.40 Ribs 3 & 4 -

Wetland Creation Australian Pine 8.05 0 0.25 1.05 5.12 0.41 Ribs 3, 4 and 5 -

Upland Restoration Scout Lagoon 1.07 0 0.80 1.07 2.85 0.32 Re-creation (Red Barn Area)

TOTAL 66.36 7 3.2 OFFSITE MITIGATION - TRANSFER OF MANGROVE-DOMINATED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BNP FPL-owned property adjacent to the transmission line corridor along the L-31E Levee north of the Project Area contains mangrove wetlands adjacent to the BNP boundary. FPL proposes to transfer 307.86 acres of mangrove-dominated property for preservation, 260.36 acres west of the L-31E Levee to SFWMD, and 47.5 acres east of the levee to the BNP (Figures 14A through C). The preservation of these mangroves would allow for potential additional benefit with regard to the overall regional restoration plans in the CERP, including re-establishment of historical freshwater sheetflow to estuarine areas. The transfer of property also provides a buffer to BNP against encroachment from future development.

Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 16 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc The number of mitigation credits generated for wetland preservation through transfer of these areas to the public trust was calculated utilizing the Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) Basis of Review mitigation ratios, FDEPs UMAM protocol, and EMBs W.A.T.E.R. functional assessment.

For each assessment method, the criteria for the calculation of mitigation credits generated through preservation are described below:

3.2.1 ERP BASIS OF REVIEW (PRESERVATION)

When considering preservation as mitigation, the following factors were considered to determine whether the preservation parcel would offset the proposed impacts and to determine the appropriate mitigation ratio:

1. The reduction in quality and relative value of the functions of the areas adversely impacted, including the factors listed in the Preservation subsection of the ERP Basis of Review, as compared to the quality and value of the functions of the area to be reserved and the additional protection provided to these functions by the proposed preservation. Factors used in determining this additional level of protection include the extent and likelihood that the land to be preserved would be adversely impacted if it were not preserved, considering the protection provided by existing regulations and land use restrictions.

2. Any special designation or classification of the affected area.

3. The presence and abundance of nuisance and exotic plants within the area to be adversely impacted.

4. The ecological and hydrological relationship between wetlands, other surface waters, and uplands to be preserved.

5. The extent to which proposed management activities on the area to be preserved promote natural ecological conditions, such as natural fire patterns.

6. The proximity of the area to be preserved to areas of national, state, or regional ecological significance, such as national or state parks, Outstanding Florida Waters, and other regionally significant ecological resources or habitats, such as lands acquired or to be acquired through governmental or non-profit land acquisition programs for environmental conservation, and whether the areas to be preserved include corridors between theses habitats.

7. The extent to which the preserved area provides habitat for fish and wildlife, especially listed species.

8. Any special designation or classification of the area to be preserved.

Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 17 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc

9. The extent of invasion of nuisance and exotic species within the area to be preserved.

Wetland and other surface water preservation ratios: Since wetlands and other surface waters are, to a large extent, protected by existing regulations, the ratio guideline for preservation of wetlands and other surface waters is substantially higher than for restoration and creation. The ratio guideline for wetland and other surface water preservation ranges between 10:1 and 60:1, (acreage of wetlands and other surface waters preserved to acreage of wetlands impacted).

Therefore, with the ERP Basis of Review criteria in consideration, the ratio for the 260.36 acres located west of the L-31E Levee is 50:1 as the wetland to be preserved falls into the below average level within the prescribed range due to the presence of exotic plants, most notably Australian pine, as a component of its makeup. The 47.5-acre saline based wetland to the east of the L-31E Levee has an important role in the health of Biscayne Bay, contains a diversity of mangrove species within the habitat, and is essentially free of exotic species; therefore, a ratio of 15:1 is appropriate using the ERP Basis of Review ratios. Utilizing the ERP Basis of Review mitigation ratios, the 307.86 acres of mangrove dominated property would generate a total of 8.37 credits, 3.17 credits for the 47.5 acres of high quality mangroves east of the transmission line corridor (15:1 ratio) and 5.2 credits for 260.36 acres of mangroves located west of the transmission line corridor that contain a greater amount of the exotic species Australian pine (50:1 ratio).

3.2.2 UMAM Effective February 2004, the State of Florida has adopted a new method of assigning credits utilizing a functional assessment method termed Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM). To quantify mitigation credits generated through preservation, the following criteria were utilized, as outlined in Section 62-345.500 Assessment and Scoring - Part 11:

(1)(a) in the case of preservation mitigation, without preservation.

(3)(a) When assessing preservation, the with mitigation assessment shall consider the potential of the assessment area to perform current functions in the long term, considering the protection mechanism proposed, and the with preservation assessment shall evaluate the assessment areas functions considering the extent and likelihood of what activities would occur if it were not preserved, the temporary or permanent effects of those activities, and the protection provided by existing Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 18 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc easements, restrictive covenants, or state, federal, and local rules, ordinances and regulations. The gain in ecological value is determined by the mathematical differences between the Part 11 scores for the with mitigation and without preservation (the delta) multiplied by a preservation adjustment factor. The preservation adjustment factor shall be scored on a scale from 0 (no preservation value) to 1 (optimal preservation value), using one-tenth increments. The score shall be assigned based on the applicability and relative significance of the following considerations:

1. The extent to which proposed management activities within the preserve area promote natural ecological conditions such as fire patterns or the exclusion of invasive exotic species.

2. The ecological and hydrological relationship between wetlands, other surface waters and uplands to be preserved.

3. The scarcity of the habitat provided by the proposed preservation area and the degree to which listed species use the area.

4. The proximity of the area to be preserved to areas of national, state, or regional ecological significance, such as national or state parks, Outstanding Florida Waters, and other regionally significant ecological resources or habitats, such as lands acquired or to be acquired through governmental or non-profit land acquisition programs for environmental conservation, and whether the areas to be preserved include corridors between these habitats.

5. The extent and likelihood of potential adverse impacts if the assessment area were not preserved.

(3)(b) The preservation adjustment factor is multiplied by the mitigation delta assigned to the preservation proposal to yield and adjusted mitigation delta for preservation.

Following the UMAM assessment procedure and using the above criteria to assess the preservation of mangrove wetlands, a delta of 0.10 was assigned, based on the difference in functional value between the with preservation and without preservation scenarios. For the mangrove wetlands west of the L-31E Levee, the number of preservation credits is calculated by multiplying the acreage (260.36) by the delta (0.10), which then is multiplied by the preservation adjustment factor of 0.7 to yield 18.20 adjusted credits. This value is then divided by the appropriate risk factor (1.5) to Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 19 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc generate 12.13 total credits of mitigation for preservation of 260.36 acres transferred to the public trust. For the mangroves located east of the L-31E Levee, a delta of 0.07 may be expected, which when multiplied by the acreage and the preservation adjustment factor (0.9), yields 2.99 adjusted credits. Division of adjusted credits by the risk factor (1.50) results in a total of 1.99 credits for the preservation of 47.5 acres of mangroves. As calculated using UMAM, 14.12 credits would be generated through the transfer of 307.86 acres of mangrove-dominated property for preservation (Appendix C).

3.2.3 W.A.T.E.R.

Although the EMB W.A.T.E.R. protocol does not specifically address the value in credits resulting from preservation, a comparison of the expected with preservation and the existing without preservation functional assessment scores can be used to calculate mitigation credits generated through transfer of mangroves for preservation. The existing without preservation W.A.T.E.R.

scores for the mangroves west and east of the corridor are 0.62 and 0.70, respectively, while in both cases the with preservation scores increased by 0.05, to 0.67 and 0.75, respectively. Using the assessment acreage (260.36 west, 47.5 east), lift per acre (0.05), and Site Suitability Multiplier (1.07 for east, 1.05 for west), a total of 16.19 credits are generated through preservation (see Appendix C).

3.2.4 PRESERVATION ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

- MANGROVE-DOMINATED PROPERTY The three mitigation assessment methodologies yield between 8.37 and 16.19 credits through transfer and preservation of mangrove dominated property adjacent to the FPL transmission line corridor and the L-31E Levee (Figures 14A through C). Although the entire 307.86-acres of property would generate 14.12 credits of mitigation according to UMAM or 16.19 credits according to W.A.T.E.R., it is proposed that the most conservative credit calculation be utilized, specifically the ERP Basis of Review ratios. Therefore, the transfer and preservation of this land would account for 8.37 credits of mitigation to offset Project impacts.

3.2.5 OFFSITE MITIGATION - PURCHASE OF CREDITS FROM THE EVERGLADES MITIGATION BANK Onsite mitigation activities would generate 7 credits, while the transfer of mangrove-dominated property adjacent to the BNP for preservation would contribute an additional 8.37. An additional 8.99 credits would be purchased from the EMB to provide a total of 24.36 credits, or 0.20 more than Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 20 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc needed to fulfill mitigation requirements. A mosaic of habitats have been enhanced within the EMB, including the creation of Essential Fish Habitat within the eastern coastal area adjacent to Card Sound, reconnection of tidal creeks freshwater headwaters to benefit hypersaline mangrove parcels, and removal of berms and roads that have isolated parcels of historically contiguous mangrove wetlands. The EMB is within the same watershed as the Project Area. Keeping the mitigation within the same watershed to retain lost function is a concept that minimizes the effects of cumulative impacts. The restoration work of the EMB would be protected from future development pressure by a conservation easement and a perpetual maintenance fund ensures oversight.

Enhancement and restoration associated with 8.99 credits of impact shall require approximately 63 acres of restored wetlands within the EMB.

3.3 MITIGATION

SUMMARY

Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation Site Lift Mitigation Area/ W.A.T.E.R. W.A.T.E.R. Suitability per Credits I Activity I Acreage I Score I Score I Multiplier I Acre I Generated I Onsite D-mid 36.34 0.76 0.86 1.07 0.10 2.52*

D-north 13.95 0.79 0.86 1.07 0.07 0.67*

Australian Pine Ribs 1 5.6 0 0.75 1.05 0.75 2.68*

and 2 Australian Pine Ribs 3 1.35 0 0.45 1.05 0.45 0.40*

& 4 -Wetland Creation Australian Pine Ribs 3, 4 8.05 0 0.25 1.05 0.25 0.41*

and 5 -Upland Restoration Scout Lagoon 1.07 0 0.80 1.07 0.80 0.32*

Re-creation Offsite Property Preservation 47.5 NA NA NA 0.0667 3.17 Transfer - East Property Preservation 260.36 NA NA NA 0.02 5.2 Transfer - West Purchase from EMB 63 NA NA NA 0.118 8.99 TOTAL 437 24.36

• Incorporates time lag and risk factors 3.4 ADDITIONAL ONSITE ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES The mitigation plan will fulfill the required credits to offset wetland impacts as described above.

FPL will continue to conduct additional onsite enhancement activities to further increase the value of the habitat surrounding the completed Expansion Project. These activities would include hydrologic Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 21 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc enhancement of undisturbed Area C located southwest of the power block, planting native vegetation within the upland Girl Scout camp area, and restoration of the majority of the acreage utilized for construction parking and laydown in Area D-west upon completion of the Project. These additional site improvements are proposed to increase the ecological value and function of the area surrounding the Project Area following construction which would provide improved habitat for the American crocodile, the Eastern indigo snake and various other listed species. Although not proposed to be offered as mitigation to offset wetland impacts, a total of 5.62 credits of functional lift may be realized through these additional onsite enhancement activities. When combined with the onsite mitigation activities described above (hydrologic enhancement, test cooling canal wetland creation and upland restoration), a total of 12.62 credits of onsite mitigation would be generated, only 7 of which are being proposed for offsetting wetland impacts associated with the Project. The additional onsite enhancement activities are described in the following sections.

3.4.1 AREA C ENHANCEMENT Area C, previously designated as the location of a proposed stormwater pond, would not be disturbed in association with the Project. However, the entire 28.24-acre parcel is receiving water through a single culvert on the eastern edge of the wetland. This culvert connects Areas A and C through a small tidal creek tributary that flows into the artificially-created lagoon and continues southwest to Area C. A portion of this tidal creek flows through Area A, which is to be impacted for location of the power block. The tidal creek connection is proposed to be maintained through re-creation of the channel on the western edge of the power block. To ensure unimpeded flow of the tidal creek towards Area C, a culvert would be placed under the temporary plant access road within Area D-east, and the existing culvert underneath the main plant access road would be enlarged. To add an extra level of assurance that Area C would not be adversely impacted, an additional culvert would be placed in the northwestern corner of Area C to increase tidal flushing and connectivity with Biscayne Bay (Figure 7). The installation of this additional tidally connected culvert will restore seagrass habitat to 0.48 acre of the western portion of Area C.

For the assessment of functional qualities, Wetland C contains two assessment areas. The wetland is surrounded by access roads and is isolated from Biscayne Bay with the exception of one small culvert that retains connection to the tidal creek flowing under the plant access road from the Area A lagoon. The culvert connection is situated in the extreme eastern most point of this wetland area, and is inadequate to flush the entire area. For this reason the wetland may easily be subdivided into Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 22 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc an east and a west half. Wetland C-west is a saline based mangrove marsh that is so removed from the historic effects of its tidal creek that there are freshwater plants growing between the dwarf red mangroves. Wetland C-east is a saline based mangrove marsh that is connected to the historic tidal creek and maintains the dwarf red mangroves and Widgeon seagrass living within this system.

Proposed enhancement activities include enlargement of the existing culvert in Wetland C-east and installation of an additional culvert in the northwest corner of Wetland C-west. The existing W.A.T.E.R. scores for Area C-east and C-west are 0.78 and 0.71, respectively. It can be conservatively estimated that upon installation of culverts, the hydrologic improvements would result in W.A.T.E.R. functional assessment scores of 0.80 and 0.78 for Areas C-east and C-west, respectively, which when multiplied by the acreage (C-east = 11.47, C-west = 16.77) and Site Suitability Multiplier (1.06), would generate 1.48 credits of mitigation. Additional lift will be realized for Area C-west with the expansion of the Widgeon seagrass beds from Area C-east into Area C-west. A minimum of 0.48 acre of this 16.77-acre assessment area will become colonized by year 5 from commencement of installation of the enlarged culvert in the south and the new culvert in the north. The enhancement of Area C is not being proposed to generate additional mitigation credits, but in an effort to increase the interconnection between all mangrove parcels and improve tidal flushing in the vicinity of the Expansion Project. These enhancements would also improve the habitat for the American crocodile juveniles and various other listed avian and fish species. This area currently supports seagrass habitat which would be further enhanced through these activities.

3.4.2 AREA D REPLANTING Following completion of construction, the fill material used to create laydown and parking areas and the temporary access road in Areas D-west and D-east would be removed, the area would be graded similar to pre-construction elevation, and red mangroves would be planted to replace 4.57 of impacted mangrove marsh within Area D-west and 0.77 acre within Area D-east. Although only 2.20 acres would be permanently impacted for parking areas, FPL is prepared to mitigate for the permanent loss of the entire construction parking and laydown area, and would expend resources to restore the majority of Area D-west following the completion of construction to improve the quality of habitat surrounding the Expansion Project. Following replanting, an additional culvert would be installed through the patrol road between Areas D-east and D-west to improve flushing and connectivity with Biscayne Bay, which should promote mangrove growth (Figure 11). Although no mitigation credit is being requested for the restoration of Area D-west, it can be reasonably assumed that after 5 years of growth, the replanted mangrove marsh would provide wetland functions Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 23 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc equivalent to a W.A.T.E.R. score of 0.68, which when multiplied by the acreage to be replanted (5.34) and Site Suitability Multiplier (1.06), would generate 3.85 credits of mitigation.

3.4.3 RED BARN TREE PRESERVE Following completion of construction, 0.905 acres of the Red Barn peninsula area are to be planted with native tropical hammock tree species (Figure 13). To obtain suitable growing conditions, the existing limerock-dominated surface would be removed, and the area amended with suitable substrate from impacted mangrove wetlands. Following successful installation and 5 years of growth, it can be conservatively assumed that the area would possess wetland functional values equivalent to a W.A.T.E.R. score of 0.30, which when multiplied by the acreage (0.905) and Site Suitability Multiplier (1.07), should generate 0.29 credits of mitigation.

3.5 SUCCESS CRITERIA FPL is responsible for implementing the mitigation and monitoring of the Turkey Point Expansion Project Mitigation Plan contained herein. The success criteria that will be used to judge the success of the mitigation activities is described in Appendix E, Mitigation Success Criteria. The document includes information about the success criteria. It also includes details about the re-vegetation process to be implemented and the monitoring, maintenance, and reporting requirements aimed at ensuring and monitoring the success of the mitigation.

3.6 LONG TERM ASSURANCE 3.6.1 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES FPL is committed to the implementation of the Mitigation Plan described in this document and takes responsibility for the any risk of loss or damages associated with the Plan. FPL is fully capable and committed to the financial and legal obligations associated with the Plan and provided assurances that will meet those obligations in the commitment letter to the ACOE dated December 15, 2004 (attached in Appendix F). The ACOE has subsequently accepted this financial commitment.

3.6.2 PRESERVATION FPL is committed to the long-term protection of the designated Preserve Areas as a result of the Mitigation Plan. Specifically, Scout Lagoon, the Test Cooling Canals, Area D-Mid, and Area D-North will be preserved in perpetuity as required by ACOE, FDEP, and DERM. The Conditions of Site Certification specify this requirement. In addition, a restrictive covenant (deed Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 24 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc restriction) will be recorded on the deed to the FPL Turkey Point property that will include a legal description of the Preserve Areas and specifically address the protections that will be afforded these areas. A draft of the deed restriction will be submitted for approval by the ACOE within 30 days of receipt of the 404 Permit [reference #2004-813 (IP-KBH)]. The deed restriction will be recorded in the public records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, within 60 days of receipt of the ACOE approval of the deed restriction. Copies of the public recording will be forwarded to the ACOE after recording. The deed restriction will assure that land encumbered by it is maintained in perpetuity predominantly in the vegetative and hydrologic condition as described in this Mitigation Plan.

The restricted area will be maintained in perpetuity by FPL, its heirs, successors, or assigns in the enhanced, restored, preserved, and/or created conditions specified in this Mitigation Plan. The restriction will run with the land and bind the successors and assigns of FPL and run to the benefit of the ACOE and its successors and assigns. Any deed conveyance of the land encumbered by it will include a recitation of the recording information pertaining to the recorded Declaration, which can only be released by a written instrument executed by both FPL and the ACOE that is recorded in the public records of the County. Likewise, any modification to the Declaration will also require a written instrument executed by FPL and the ACOE that is recorded in the public records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 25 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc

4.0 CONCLUSION

Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts is a multi-level, complicated process designed to protect and replace the functional attributes of Floridas coastal wetlands. The mitigation package as proposed has assigned a value to the saline based mangrove wetlands and determined that 29 percent of the functional values the impacted saline marsh provides would be retained within the immediate area. By concentrating on mitigation within the immediate area that promotes and increases the health and productivity of the red mangroves, the proposed mitigation plan protects the areas tidal creeks. The increased flushing brought to so many mangroves through the installation of the culverts should retain the level of mangrove leaf detritus production that enters the tidal creeks and the Bay.

The wildlife that depends on that food web would therefore be sustained and not suffer from reduced input. Keeping the remaining functions within the same watershed would protect the integrity of the system as a whole. The EMB is providing ecological lift on an extremely large scale. Mitigation activities that are notable with regard to the EMB project include the planting of thousands of red mangroves within the footprint of former roadways and berms, hydrologic enhancement through re-establishment of freshwater inputs, enhancement of isolated parcels of mangroves through removal of berms and roads, and creation of suitable nesting and juvenile refugia habitat for the American crocodile.

Wetland direct impacts and secondary impacts associated with the construction of the Project require 24.16 mitigation credits. There would be 7 mitigation credits of functional enhancement performed by FPL within the immediate area, representing approximately 66.36 acres of wetland creation, enhancement, and restoration. The transfer and preservation of 307.86 acres of mangrove dominated property adjacent to BNP would generate an additional 8.37 credits of mitigation. There shall also be 8.99 credits purchased from the EMB. These credits equal approximately 63 acres of restored saline wetlands within the EMB that would be preserved in perpetuity. The total mitigation package includes over 430 acres of enhanced, restored, or preserved wetlands, representing 24.36 credits, offered to offset the 24.32 acres of direct impact. Additional wetland enhancement activities would be conducted onsite to further increase the functional value of the surrounding area, which may be expected to generate an additional 5.62 credits above and beyond that which is required to offset impacts. These extra activities are not included in the accounting for Project mitigation credits.

Mitigation Plan

1/27/05 26 0337600/4/4.2/4.2.1 Wetland Mit/Plan.doc FPLs avoidance and minimization efforts have resulted in significant revisions to the Project design, which has reduced direct wetland impacts from 36.94 to 24.32 acres. The restoration of temporary construction laydown areas and the temporary entrance road (5.34 acres) results in a total of 18.98 acres of permanent impacts. In addition to the mitigation package, FPL will pursue additional onsite enhancement to increase the quality of habitats surrounding the Project. These enhancements further support the American crocodile, essential fish habitat, and native seagrasses as well as many other listed species of wildlife. The mitigation package and additional enhancement activities represent a commitment to offset unavoidable wetland impacts while still providing the generation capacity required to fulfill the electric power demand forecasted within the densely populated South Florida urban landscape.

Mitigation Plan

FIGURES laftlal Concept (8/03) Dredge & Elli Ap~llcatron and

-40 Acre Welland Impact Site Certification Appllcat!on Submittal ( 11 /14/03) 37 Acn Wetland Impact (SeagroH Avoidance) r----,,,-.......- . - -

Prior to Dredge & Fm AppHcatJon and CURRENT CONCEPT (4/01/04)

SJte certlfJcatton AppUcatlon Submittal (9/o:s) 2-4-Ac:;re Welland Impact (5 Acn11 lo b1 R11'for1d) FIGURE 37- Aer. Wetland Impact NA cs 1URl([Y POINT lll'llllll:IINMIII

'ltTINll'I . .N:r ir=PL D(24"i>>") SITING ~IIOCISS

~ 4 \............ ' - " ' - . _ - -

I OI' I 0

./ ~- ' l

\

' .r .{ . '. :

I * .J.~  :

IL .. .

.. "',< AREA Sb Ji 'I' , " I* . / '1 .

..Jf*. *,

.I. . *

' I * * * *;

, '. , *. '..!/

-:],* . *  !;_, ' ,..: .' .,~-"'

~-a- *;" ,' I ,. ,-+ ii *1*"*:: "

1~.-: .' .

,' '.J"

. ~ . ,._.___ ~ .- __,...______

II

.}-

I (r1 I -*.

'" -t!3 '. I I

I ,11:

. ~- i I,* I

. i

... - *

• I J-- .

~ I:

• \*,3~.{t*,* ;'*, .*.*i;.r '

,. "II'. * " ~i. .r . ~ ~-.=~...=~_-:,.:.,--t_X""LL.........

~- ' . ~'wft'I I

' ~  ;., ~ ,,_,__._____.j

~:

D FIGURE 2 FINAL PROJECT DESIGN-OVERALL VIEW 1.;..,.,

SH 0-. __..

,;,c ..:-~

.._ *"-';'fl;

-,l

--* S<-TPr -C:(P-015 n:-*

, er 1

IFi-GURE 3 FINAL PROJECT DESIGN-EAST e r....: "4 S<< Dw:;i

• --- .,.._~

t!i

.C ...._. IN

~.,

'n'dlA"iQ 1,PACT S:PL D;2-4 "X!',"') */l SK-TPr-EXP-015 n,-

• 1 or I D

1

. /

t FIGURE 4 FINAL PROJECT DESIGN-WEST

FIGURE 5. TURl<EY P[IINT EXPANSI[IN PR[IJECT MITIGATION PLAN 0==30=0*=~=00*==1~0* ~

\./ETLAND IDENTIFICATION MAP SCALE 1*= 600' NORTH ~

. . . . . . 11..a.-...,... ,..

~ . . . . - n , n::an,1 .a.otDICI

FIGURE 6. TURl<EY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT 0 3001 6001 MITIGA TI N PLAN SCALE 111 = 6001 VE GET ATI N ANALYSIS

FIGURE 7. TURl<EY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT o 300* Goo* 1200' NITIGA TI N PLAN  :=~==~==1 ON-SITE MI TIGATI N PROPOSAL SCALE 111 = G001 ................. \1-.n

.... ~......,..,n:xt . 'l--lHI.IMIII

.. FIGURE 8. TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT 0 150' 300' l=PL TEST COOLING BERMS' ON-SITE MITIGATION PLAN SCALE 1*= 300'

EXISTING CONDITIONS RIBS 1 & 2 r EXOTIC AUSTRALIAN PINE

.1 APPROXIMATELY 4 FEET ABOVE MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW)

OPEN WATER OPEN WATER r;;;;;;;;.~~~~~-"'- OPEN WATER WETLAND BERM (UPLAND) BERM (UPLAND)

RIB#2 RIB#1 3 FEET APPROXIMATE WATER DEPTH POST MITIGATION CONDITIONS RIBS 1 & 2 ELEVATION AND PLANTING PLAN r NATIVE PLANTINGS"TYPICAL" APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHESABOVE MHW OPEN WATE_~- -~ _

7~~~I ~ ~;---\\ -~~/ O_i=>_~_NV\fATER_ ~ _ _ y=-=~l~~~1 ,---~--.___-_--_---~----_o_~~E-N--W--A--T-E_R__-_--~----_-_--_-_-__,7_;ErLAND L 3 FEET APPROXIMATE WATER DEPTH CROSS-SECTIONS "TYPICAL" NOTTO SCALE DATE: 02-16-04 Cotleur FIGURE 9. TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT Hearing 1834 Commerca Lane Suite 1 TEST COOLING BERMS' ON-SITE MITIGATION PLAN Jupl..... F'orida 33458 FPL 581-747-6336 Fax-747-1377 Mall:h 25, 2004 11 :03:38 a.m.

Dra;Mg: COIJIPOSITE.DWG

EXISTING CONDITIONS RIBS 3, 4 & 5 r EXOTIC AUSTRALIAN PINE r EXOTIC AUSTRALIAN PINE r EXOTIC AUSTRALIAN PINE

~ . - - . APPROXIMATELY 4 FEET ABOVE

.I MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW)

OPEN WATER ~~~~~ OPEN WATER WETLAND BERM (UPLAND)

RIB#3 3 FEET APPROXIMATE WATER DEPTH POST MITIGATION CONDITIONS RIBS 3, 4 & 5 r

REMOVE EXOTICS AND ADD r

JUVENILE CROCODILE LAGOONS REMOVE EXOTICS REMOVE EXOTICS AND ADD ALLOW NATIVES TO GROW. JUVENILE CROCODILE LAGOONS APPROXIMATELY 4 FEET ABOVE I MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW)

--~/-- -~ -/J~B_E_R_M-(U_P_LA_N-D)-,~

RIB #5 OPEN WA~~~

-10 /,-~\

BERM (UPLAND)

--~-~~~~~~~~~------7~~~~;;;'~- -

_...,...________ BERM (UPLAND)

O~PE_N~-AT~~R -----~--7 WETLAND RIB #4 RIB #3 3 FEET APPROXIMATE WATER DEPTH CROSS-SECTIONS "TYPICAL" NOTTO SCALE DATE: 02-16-04 Cotleur FIGURE 10. TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT Hearing 1834 Commerca Lane Suite 1 TEST COOLING BERMS' ON-SITE MITIGATION PLAN Juplte<. F'orida 33458 FPL 581-747-6336 Fax-747-1377 Mall:h 25, 2004 11 :03:38 a.m.

DnMfflg: COIJIPOSITE.DWG

.. FIGURE 11. TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT o 100* 200*

l=PL PROPOSED LAYDOWN AREA FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE 1*= 200'

~ ~~

FIGURE 12. TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT AREA A GREEN CREEK'S ONSITE MITIGATION 0:=====;1=00=':2"20=0*==4'.1'1:

SCALE 1"= 2001 ~" ~---

NORTH 1-N.- ""'m Ill')'

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.JII

~~-----'"'l.11XT11-':Ml1Ma

.. FIGURE 13. TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT 0 100' 200' l=PL AREA G SCOUT LAGOON ON-SITE MITIGATION SCALE 1*= 200'

Boundary - 307 .86 Acres Aerial Map Figure 14-A Cotleur &

I lcaring Turkey Point Expansion 1~>:14 Comrncrcc U*HK' St11I C l 1 inch equals 600 feet Acfiacent Mitigation (Prese,vatlon) Areas Jupi1er, l'L :n4:.H Phone- : ;,(i 1-74 7-fi:U(j Fa:,: :i(i l -747 - 1:177

Aerial Map Legend ADJACENT MITIGATION AREAS TURKEY POINT EXPANSION LOCATION ON-SITE MITIGATION EMB - BOUNDARY Note: Orthophotography obtained from ftp://146.201.97.137/doqq/1999/StatePlane_E/MrSid/.

Map Document: (F:\ArcMap_Project s\FPL-TurkeyPoint\Aerial-Hearing-111604. mxd) Polygon and point shapefiles for Miami-Dade Landfill, Atlantic Civil Project, EMB, US1 and the 11/16/ 2004 -- 11:27: 16 AM Card Sound Project were created by Cotleur & Hearing, Inc.

Cotleur &

Hearing Turkey Point Expansion Project Landscape Architecture Plc1nning Enviromnental Consulting:

Graphic Design Miami-Dade County, Florida 1934 conuncrcc Lane Suite l 1 inch equals 1.5 miles .Jupiter, 1-'"L 33458 Phone: Gtil-747 -6336 Fax: 561-747-1377

Eastern Parcel To Be Transfered To Biscayne National Park Parcel: C Parcel: D Acres: 52.31 Acres: 47.46 BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK Parcel: B Acres: 111.40 BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK Parcel: A Western Three Parcels Acres: 96.69 To Be Transfered To OUTPARCEL SFWMD BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK Legend 1*** ..:: Boundary - 307.86 Acres

... ~

Biscayne_Bay_National_Park Aerial Map Cotleur &

Hearing Turkey Point Expansion 1934 Commerce Lane Suite 1 1 inch equals 0.5 miles Adjacent Mitigation Areas Jupiter, FL 33458 Map Document: (F:\ArcMap_Projects\FPL-TurkeyPoint\Base2.mxd) Phone: 561-747-6336 11/16/2004 -- 10:45:16 AM Fax: 561-747-1377

APPENDIX A W.A.T.E.R. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SCORING

FPL Everglades Mitigation Bank Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation (MBSE) Matrix Page 1 of1 Parameters Turkey Point Expansion - Wetland A and D Impacts (Slle-Cl'Hled DY: DoNfdoon Hutlnal

.. ~. *** ., **

• "-* .. .. **- -**** ... ** * ... ... ...... , .. ,,_ .,..,.* , .* . .... ~-~ ~- - .... .. .,, ,.n, ..... .., ..... '

~

• • . -~ ~. ,, , . ._.,, ,J'talfn41 *. *- '~ """'"

1, Adjacent to lands or walenl of regional Importance and results In ldentlllable Stale Palk, OFW, AP, and lnduding bul nol llmlleO 10 Special Walers on al leasl 1 boundary 1 1

- beneftl:I to ac:1-..1 lands or waters. AOiacenl tandS contain no """""'i deslanation or undealanaleO """"'al value 0

2. Property ls within boundary of an acknowledged slate, local or reglonal Beql,lllillon PIOQram f'rol>ellY 11 Wl1hln bounOary of an acqulSlflon jl!Ogrlm 1

- Is not Wllhln ""',n,t,.n, d an .,.,,.,lthlon "'"""'m 0 0

3. Property contains eeologlcal or geologtcat featuNS con1illently considered by regional Property qualltle$ 1 Scienaet ar federal and stale aaane1n to be Uf11.ttU81, unlaue or rare In tne realon and Is of eufficient size PrMArtv does not nualifv 0 0

4. Property deelgnated as Detng of Clltieal state or federal concern and/or contain* special d911gnaaons, P,ope,1y oomalnl at lust 1 epedal c18Slgnatlan. 1 1 PmMllv oontalns no ,-,iai dA<<lonAUont. 0 Ii. Property Important to aeknowledged reetoration efforts Propeny Is lrnpot1ant, 1 1 Pr""""" Is not lmcortant. 0

• • 01'/nershlp and control of the property. Propeny Is p~vately owned. 1 1 Property Is OUblidv owned. 0

7. Threatened , Endangered & Species of Special Concem Oocumenled Presence of Spades on slle 1 1 Presence of animal eaecies lfaunan found on site No documented Presence of s=les on site. 0 0

a. Threatened , Endangered & Listed Species Documentad Presence Of Species on Site 1 Presence ol nlAM llnMH /flolall found on sue No documented Presence ol S"""ies on 111e. 0 0

.. ... .. . . -~ **-*

. 9. Threat or loss or destruc11on from development acttvlaee. (Development Prea.ure) High probabllily ol deveklpment. 1 1 10, Extent to which.lands are subject to Local, Slate, and Federal dredge.and flit/ ERP Regulations

. ~ow prab!billtv °.f~~

Property Is regulated.

-- .. _......-...... ~'1',. . :f!*,.***""' '""'*

~

0 1

. .. ~ .. ~ . ...

1 IPMNinv Is not reoulated. 0 Value Cumuladve Score (CS) 7 The Mittgatlan Bank sue Sultablllly Evaluation Mat~* IS dellgned to provide a quantlftal>le means of det_ ermlntng the number of millgatlan credits that should bl assigned 10 a bafflvallM" related parameten. Value related parameters are human values determined to be lmpol!ant 10 soctety; and therefor8 are not measurable in a purely luncflonal analysla. Functional analySls wlll only measure the degree of lunctlonal ecological Improvement (degree Of ecolaglcal Improvement) resulllng from mitigation adMtles. the SS Evaluatk>n measures and provides credit for 10Cletal values that separate one mitigation bank rrom another as required by Ch.62-342 .470 (al (b) (el (I) (g) (h) (I) F.A.C.. The SS evaluation ts not to be utilized In conjunction witll a functi >nat ana1ySl1 melhOdology whlc:11 atso utilizes value related pa,amelera In Us analysis.

Evaluatlon Scale Site Suitabllity Maximum Possible Score MPS 10 Suitablitv MulUDller CumulatiYe Score CS 7

!I[) --+--j 1.10J 0.7 rn 11.oel EPA, USACOE, USF & W. FDEP, NMFS, SFWMD, Dade DERM, FPL, CH 3-Apr-96 After Calculating the Site Sultabllity Score determine the Site Suitability Multiplier by utilizing the Evaluation Scale to the left. The Site Sultablllty Mulllpller is to be multiplied limes the number of the rn ---11.os1 Functional Mitigation Credits, resulting from the (W.A.T.E.R.) Functional Assessment of the Mitigation Bank, to determine the number of Sile Suitablllty Credits to be assigned to the Mitigation Bank.

CD 1,.041 OJ 11.031

[TI 11.021 OJ 1,.011 m m Prepareo By:

Cotleur Hearing 4/6/2004

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: 8111 L; Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R. -Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Oata Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland A and D Impacts Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA,FDEP,ACOE,NMFS USF&W,SFWMO& OlldeCounty (WATER** ..crealedby: BIIIL M. .)

rr* *- - - - ,;*;:... ::,-** Pol**gon Povaon I

j Parameter/ Function Sco,:tn*g*Critert.11 ~tin.,.

Wetland A* Pre Wetland A*

Impact

• net1ano D WHt Pre wet1ana o of Patrol Rd,* West of Patrol Rd.*lmpact weuand o East of Patrol Rd.* Pre wetlana o 1:aat of Patrol Rd.*

Impact

1. Fish & wrldllfe Functions Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems 7 or more <nAdes ~ observed 3

• • Wat.trtowl, wading birds, weUand dependent, or aquatic ~ -~,es commonlv obse,ved 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 birds of prey. 1-2 ..,...,,es commonlv 0bserVed 1 MIi. Bank

• Miah *"""'a count w/ low """* #'s score 1 Osoecles commonlv observed 0 7 or more soecles commonlv observed b, Fish . 3-3 soedes commonly Observed 3

2 3 0 2.6 0 3 0 (Mil. Bank

• High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 1*2 soecles commonly observed 1 Restoration that causes 12% oon. lncreasea-hlaher acore1 o "°"etas commonlv observed 0 Ton nredator lcamlvorel &/or large mammals 3 c,Mammals Medium sized mammals , (adult walaht > 6 lbs.l 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 (MIi. Bank

• Mlgh specie count wt low pop. #'s score 1 Small animals lrodents, etc.I , fadull welaht < 6 lbs. I 1 Restoradon that causes 12% Mn, lncreases-hlaher sc<<el OsNldes....,.ant 0 7 or more soacles commonly observed 3

d. AquaUc macrolnYertebrates, amphibians 3-e s"""'es commonlY observed 2 3 0 2.5 0 3 0 (MIi. Bank - tilgh specie count wt low pop. #'s score 1 1-2 sDAcies commonlY observed 1 Restoration that cau889 12% DOD. tncreases-hlaher score! 0 saectes commonlY obServed 0 Larae s-1es observed 3

a. Aquatic repflles Aauatic turtles 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 (Mil. Bank. High specie c011n1 w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Snakes & llzardS 1 Restoration that causes 12% n,,n , lncreases-hlaher score) No evidence of soecles nrasanl 0 Page 1 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R*.* Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland A and D Impacts Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project Ust (PPL) with technlcal advise from

.. ~,..... .... . . .. ..*. . ..

EPA,FDEP,ACOE,NMFS,USF&W,SFWMO&., ___DadeCounty (WATER crutedby. BIIL Maus)

... *- --~**---**"' ..... . - --*** ***- . . . .. -* * *****-' --*** * -**

.. . ,. Polvaon Polvaon Wetland D West WetlandD WetlandD Wetland D East

.,.,.m1-r,,t F1.1ntifon 1 Scoring Criteria -~tlllf'

___,, Wetland A

• Pre Wetland A* of Patrol Rd.* West of Patrol East of Patrol of Patrol Rd.*

-,, **~n**"**~*~-** -*

Impact Pre Rd.-lmpact Rd.*Pre Impact

2. Veoetatlve Functions Apply to frHhwaler, saltwater, brackish and mitlaallon sv,tems Desirable treeslllvub healthy & providing epprop11ale habilal (seedlings 3

Ptetentl & no lnaMmnl'lata sl>Rdes Desirable treMIShrubs akhibil signs of stress (no seedlings) rew 2

a. Overatory/shrub canopy lnall<lln<lriate sDades ""'88nt 3 0 2 0 3 0 1

lnannmrvfate lrees/shl\lbS shadlna or_overcomlna desirable lrff/Shrub1 Vety ume ct no .,_ra1>1e .,.,.,,..,rullS presen1 (eViaence suggeslS inere

~

.... ,,, "-......,. 8h01Jld be) 0 Aasasunant area e>Chiblls <2% lnepprop,1ate herblleeoua groond cover lot srw,lfic wetland svstems and aroundoover is oresent 3 ASsessman1 area con1a1ns >.!'llo DUI ....,.,,. tnapp,_,...e nen,aceous

b. Vegetative ground cover :nrnundoove,, ct lack of aroondcover >2% but < 30% 2 3 0 1 0 3 0 Assessment area contains >30% lo <70% inapp,op,1ale herbaeeous 1

,aroundcover, ot lack of ""'"nd cover >30% lo <70%

Auessment area > 70% lnepp,opriete herbaceous groundcover lack °' 0 of aroundcover >70%

Pertphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mal thickness > t 114 In. /measure acuire & dead layerl 3 Pertphyton (Blue-green algae) present wllh average mal lhlekness

c. Periphy10n mat coverage between 3/4 In. lo 1 1/4 In. (actJve & dead layer) 2 2.5 0 0.5 0 1.5 0 Pertphyton (Blue-green algae) present wllh average mat thickness between 1/4 in. lo 3/4 In. (actJve & dead layer) 1 Pertphyton (Blue-green algae) not present or If pressenl wilh average lhlckness of 0.0 lo 1/4 In. (active & dead !aver) 0

< (or* lol 1 % exotic otanl cover 3 Cl. Category 1 and Category 2 uotic plants or (non-native) >1 % to 10 % Gkotlc Diani cover 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 species >10 "' 10 86 *,1, ekollc olant cover 1

> es % uotlc Plant cover 0

>3 naUY8 """"'es communllles on sile wllhln assesssmenl area 3 a, Habitat diversity (vegetative) 2 or 3 nauve specie communilles on sue within assessmenl area 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 native species community with 75 % 10 go% coverage wilhin

/within assessment area) assessment area 1 1 native species commtJnily has >.go % coverage wilhln assessment area 0

> 3 allematlve habl18ls available llncludina uotandl 3

f. Biological diversity wi1hin 3000 feel 2 10 3 allemative habilalS 2 3 0 3 0 3 0

/epptOJtlmately t/2 mNo from odge Of assessment aflla) 1 allematlve habitat 1 Same habll811""" or lnaooroor1ale / lmoacted 0 Page2of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function -- Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L; Maus & Karl Bullock W.A. T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collecttd on: OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland A and D Impacts Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA.FDEP,ACOE, NMFS,USF&W,SFWMD& Dade County (WATl!A CtHledby. IIIIIL M.,.)

~

- Pol aon POlfgon

! neuanaoweaI weuana D Wetland D wetlana D 1:ast

! ftrt:i'Mltt/Functton ,Scoring Criteria . Rilinoa: Wetland A* of Patrol Rd,* Wnt of Patrol East of Patrol of Patrol Rd.*

. - . " *~--- . , . .. . .

.. ....... , ' ... Wetland A

• Pre Impact Pre Rd.-lmpact Rd.*Pre Impact

3. Hvdroloalc Functions Major connection (F-,,,,, wllletl ,,.,,, or floodplain/ unJIDtm now 11>,ougt, n/1/utal .........,, 3 Moderale connection ( - rosltfcfjon ol flow or F,_llfl w*ltrd.,. to 2

• • Surface water hydrology I sheet flow h_,_,._,,_,,_J 2.5 0 1 0 2.5 0 Apply to rroshwetor, $11/twalor, btocldllh and m/1/pal/on syito,ns Mino, connecilon (Runoff eo/ltctlon point or ...,.,.n /low due to bonns.

d/11:hes,-etc,J 1 Hydrologlcally l&olaled, no nel laleral movemenl 0 3

> 8 monlhs lnundale5 monlhS < 8 monlhs o, >5 years continuous inundation (IOOk tor strong waler slalns on perslslent vegelatlon) 2

b. Hydropei1od (nonnal year) fresh systems

>1 monlll < 5 monlhs, wilh posSlble reversals (IOOk for soft or less 1 dlallnct waler s1aIns on persistent veaetaUonl

< 4 weeks cumulallve annual lnundaUon or< 2 weeks continuous 0

lnundaUon

>10weeks of conunuous lnundallon Including sou saIurallon 3

> 6 weeks but <10 weeks ot conllnuous Inundation Including soil f>.f A/ternat* to b. far saturation 2 1

Short Hydroperlod (normal year) fresh systems: >2 weeks bul <6 weeks of lnudaUon, Including soil saluralion 0

<2 weeks of con<<nuos inundallon

- - 1/2 .. ~~-- ---- *- - * * ~

,~..... ~ *.. .,___._.,,,.,.. ,.._,. .* --.- ..... ~ ...... ., ~ *-

Inundated bv >90% hloh !Ides f>.Z Alternate to b. tor Inundated by 'sllffno* htoh Udes (bl-monthly) 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 Saltwater, braeklsh (tidal) systems lnundaled bv *exIreme hloh' lkles onlv tblannualM 1 lnundaled bv storm SU"""' onlv 0 lnundaled by high "spring' Udes (monlllly) and flushed by fresh waler 3 sheettlow everv 1Odavs averaae Inundated by high "spring" lldes (monlllly) and nushed by freSh waler 2

l>-3 Alternate to b. for sheetnow every 30 davs on lhe average High Marsh (Juncus-Olsttchlls) lnundaled by high "spring" Udes (monlhly)and exposed lo rain only 1 lnundaled by >50% high tides and ""1>MAd to rain only 0 lnundaled by high lldes (daily) and/or recieves and malnlalns fresh 3

waler at leas! lnlo first half of dry season IInunaa1ea oy mgn """" 1aaIlyJ ana,or recteves ana maInlaIns m,sn M Alternate to b. for water during rainy season onlv 2 Riverine sy5tems IInunaated by hign uaes 1aally) and/or rec,aves If=* waler out aoes nol maIn1aIn (reversal) during rainy season 1 Inundated by apnng tides (bi-monthly) and/or expe~ences frequent reversals of freSh waler (flashy) 0

. . ***- *** **~ -*** -*-*--*"' ****-** ... -- ..... , .*. .. --- -*- **** ****-* - ... .... ~*

Page 3 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on:- OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland A and D Impacts Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project Ust (PPL) with technical advise from EPA, FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO & Dade County ..

,:NATER eteated by* BHI L Maus) i

. . ,....,,, " *---~-- **-*- ****~ .. . .. *- V ***- ~ .... ... . - -* - --* . .. ) r* _.. ,, Pollaon Polvaon i I ( "' 1wetland o west WetlandD Wetlandu WetlandD East

! ~raiWei.r/ ;funttfdn scor1ng*Ct1t..r1a iRat1ngjJ Wetland A* of Patrol Rd.* Wnt of Patrol East of Patrol of Patrol Rd.*

' .. .... ---- --*" .. ... .* =* ......... ** **- ' -~** -** . Wetland A* Pre Impact Pre Rd.*lmpact Rd.-Pre Impact

3. Hwlroloalc Functions continued

>1 fl. water depth for at least 2.5 months and <8 in. for> t month (measure water marl</ lichen line~ or water depth Ideal for speclr,c 3 wetland Mlem.

>6 In to 1 ft. for at least 2.5 months (measure water marl</ lichen line) 2

c. Hydropattem (fresh system) or water depth borde~lne over or under for specific weband swtem

. <8 in. for at least 2.5 mcntlla (meaSU'e water marl</ lichen line) or water depth lncotrect for sMriftc wetland svstern

<8 In. in association with either canals, ditches, swales, culverts, 1

pumps, andt'or wellflelds, or these factors cause water depth to be too 0 daeo for soedfic system.

>1 ft. water deoth <2 a on 90'4 hlah tides 3 c*f Altemata lo c, for > 6 in. water deolh <1 ft. on >50% hloh tides 2 3 0 2 0 2.5 0 Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems < 6 in. water <IAnth , but > than saturated 1

. .. ~- -~ - - : ..._ .. .. *- - - Saturated bv oallne water table onlv

• ~- . -*--- .f 0 ¥ * * - * - ..-.. - - -

>10 in. water depth <2 ft. on reaular basis dur1ng growing season

• - .,- .. . .. ....0 ...,..

3

_ --........... ,., . -- ..... * ***, * .., _ *- .,._,_., .,, ... ,.._....., _, .,,. ., .*., .., *.. , ., . . /;,-.*, .....

C*I Altemai.10 c. for >5 In. to 10In. water depth on regular basis dunna growing season 2 High Marsh (Juncus-Olstichlls) >1 In. to 5 In water decth on regular basis durinQ nmwing season 1

>0.0 In. to 1 In. water declh scoradk:allv dunno arowlng season 0

>2 ft. water deolh rmain channel\ <6 ft. for 8 months 3 C*I A1tar11at* to C, for >2 ft. water declh (main channell <4 ft. for 6 months 2 Riverine systems >1 fl. water deoth I main channel\ <2.5 ft. for 4 months 1

<1 ft. waterdecth, but drv for .>4 weeks ldrv season\ 0

-~...... -~- *-*** *-** --

, ... ****--*** - *-* -------** ... ... *. *~ _____ ..,.

-*****- ****** -----~ . *- -- ... -- -**

Page4 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scorfng conductd by: BIii L M u & KUI Bullock W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Aa...sment Technique for Environmental Revtewt Data Calleclld on: OCT. 22,2GOS Project Wetland A and D lmpam Based on WBI, WQI, WR>P, HGM and lh Prioftty ProJect Ust (PPL) wl1h technical advise from EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS. USF & W, SFWMO & 0 . County (WAT.EA. - ~ M 1.. ....,_.)

- =-*~,*. '-'" Po~ aon Pot,11on wltiana D Wftt we111ndD Welland D Wetland D Ent Parimeterf Function

3. Uuttro/,.,.,IC Funcfloml contJnwd ___ ,

Storf"g Crtterfa

,... ~,o,po<<.,_ _,., ...,_'II (--

""'"""'"""ca""""'poo,waw""""1-l""""JUMovtro, Rdnga 3

.. W.U.ndA*Prt WettandA*

Impact of Patrol Rd.* WHI of Patrol Pre Rd.*lmpact E11t of Patrol Rd,*PNI of Patrol Rd.*

Impact

d. W.-Owlll!y und.,..,._bl,,_I 2 2 0 1.15 0 2 0

\#Ider _ _

IVIIII OI po()/ -

, ,-- .. , ,._10\ltl'OI 1

Villlal lndcllln d po<< wastr qually OtlftMCI 0t lal>""1ted (14kln 0

MOUlol Untllered 3

e. l n ~ I of hia!Dfte topOljrllphy (soil alsturblllCI) 1-....-..ecilOll~.

• I O ' l l t o f -

• u 2 2.S 0 3 0 2.~ 0 Modela!IIY an.M IOil ~ . C 2811. ol a - 1 Ir.. 1 ExnmllyllWecld<IIH,-,fNY-50'll.ol-0 Organic IOli dllwhcl h)Gfe IOI >12 In. Of 1111y llld<ntst o.tt

~-Pl"tntdwatatlabltllllleilt,tt-COYtMQ 3

~d1Ul1ace*..

Ol'QlW1le 1011<:lltlitlecl hydllc IOI ~ Ill. bul <12 ln. 1~ tOl4MQ ~

2

f. SollS, o,genlc (lrtSII lyltem$) 0111111- . . .

0rQllnlc 1011 di.-.., h ~ IOI >t 111. bul ct In. 1110 0CMIMQ >!IOII.

1 bul-olluifaclaru Orgenic I O I ~ no,,.f\~to,I c I In. tor*~ a l ~ lfN 0

__.,toil da,...,_ hydllc IOl'Wlth ~ ffl01llr'9 Ind c:oncrellonl

,.,,_11111 In......,..,. Illa'! '°"" ol ho,tton. 3 s.lC!ylOI daalMlecl ll)'dlle ICl""'1 ~ - concrltionl p,aaenl In 2 f.1 Altllmm ia r. tor >20%but*40%olrlonJon.

F _, _ _ ,,.,..

Sandy SOIi clMNlecl l)y!t'c IOllwiell loglllOI lpa,M mdllf,g and C 2 IM'I Clanl<<ar 0/ ( 2011, of 11()1z(lft.

I Of la,.

Sanc!ySOilextibll a t r o n g ~ o l ~ O I ~

Ni.lat. 0 Calca<toui toa<n >12 In. and >-DO % ol lUl!lot- 3

-AlfMn,,..-.-~).,._.

f.z to l for CaQreoutloe,n>tln. 1D<l2ift.and>~ollU'fac:.area c:.IQl90UStoaffl I In. lo 41n. .,,d-tMQ ><!0% b11t <90%01

~ team <I In. IOI*~ al..,,_. 111U 2

0 3 0 3 0 3 0 I

Page 5 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Conected on: OCT; 22,2003 Project Wetland A and D Impacts Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA, FDEP. ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County ..

(WATER created by. BIi L Maul)

I

., *:* 1/ Pol, gon Polygon Wetland D West WettandD Wetland D Wetland D East

P*ra~/:-FLtnc:tlon Si:OrlnttGrtterla , 'Ratlnp , Wetland A* of Patrol Rd,* West of Patrol East of Patrol of Patrol Rd.*

Rd.*lmpact Rd.*Pre Impact

-*---******~Wetland A

• Pre Impact Pre

4. Sal/nlty Parameters Apply to frflshwater. sallwa!er. oracle/Sh, hypers1/fne 1nt1 mitigation S)'Stems

• Choose 1

<2 parts per lhousand (ppt) 3

• • Optimum aallnlty fat fresh systems during growing 2 to 3 parts per thousand (ppt) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a nonnal year. 4 to 5 parts per thousand (ppt) t

~ ro ,,..,,.,.,., *)'llam* w/lhln 5 mt/es d the coast >5 parts per lhousand (ppt) 0

..1. A/temate to a. 6 to 6 parts per thousand (ppt) 3 Optimum salinity for brackish systems during growing 9 to 13 parts per thousand (PPI) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a n0fllllll year, 14 to 18 pMI per thoU6811d (ppt) 1 iAPlllY to black/Sh (Ilda// ,rllems only >16 parts per thousand (ppt) 0 a-2. Alternate to a. 17 to 1Q parts per thousand (ppt) 3 OpUmum salinity for saline systems during growing 20 to 22 parts per thousand (ppt) 2 3 0 0.5 0 3 0 season based on mean high salinity for a nonnal year. 23 to 25 parts per thousand (ppt) 1 Apply (o 111/ne marsh (1/dlll) s)'Stems only >25 parts per thOusand (ppt) 0 a-3. Alternate to a. 26 to 41 parts per thousand (ppt) 3 Opllmum salinity tor hype~line systems durtng growing 42 to 46 parts per thousand (ppt) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 47 to 51 parts per lhousand (ppt) t i,lpp/y to hypersaline (lk/a/J systems only >61 parts per thOusand (ppt) 0

• .,, Alternate to a. bottom (lower) third between 12 to 25 ppl 3 Optimum salinity tor rtvertne/lidal creek system durtng mlddle lhlrd between 5 to 11 ppt growing season based on mean high stalnlty tor a normal upper (top) third betweem O to 4 ppt year, bottom (lower) third between 25 to 32 ppt 2 Apply to lfwllfne systems only middle third betwaen 6 to 24 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem Oto 5 ppt bOttom (rower) third between 30 to 40 ppt 1 middle third between 8 to 2Q ppt.

upper (top I third betweem Oto 7 ppt bottom (IOwer) third between 35 10 50 ppt 0 middle third between 10 to 34 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem Oto Qppt I eumu1auveScq,e1sc1 ___4_9;..s.,._  ;; _____o._o_____38 ........s_____o_.o________4"'s.-o______o_____

W.A. T.EJt cneted by: sn, L. Mau* MaxlmumPoss1b1eScorelMPS1 ___54 __.o_o_____54_._oo_______54_._oo______....,54.;.a.o;;.;o;.....____......

54 .oo....______54--.00--__

1111/1895 WA.I,E.R, =Cumulatiye ScorelMpxlmum POfflble Score 0.92 0 0.71 O 0.89 0 Page 6 of6

FPL Everglades Mitigation Bank Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation (MBSE) Matrix PI0-1 of 1

_ _ _ b,; _ _ ,

Parameters Turt(ey Point Expanalon - Wetland H and E Impacts

t. AdJ-* lo landa et walll'I of l'IQlonal hpxttnceancl rwwi. In I ~

e"""""'-1,_,_IDadiaellnlllndlOI'~-

l. Pftllle,ty la wlltln IIOunday of a n ~ ICN, IOCII c, rtglonlll acqlnlllon PfOOIW!'I Of-lad-*

SIii"' Pn. OFW, M', a n d ~ l!UI not ln-.ed 10 Soedl,1 W:alell lJ'lllliall I 1 -lalld& C0ftlMI no PIOPIIIY1s..,._~ol.,.~~

vallMI

~

• -- 1 0

- f

--.ilnolwilllln""" ...... ~olan-.-.... - 0 0

). ;::::::_ con-,. IC:Ologicalor~ ,..11n1----,Clll!IINl'to by rag1011,11

<<fedelaanclllirlll_......._laolleLIIIWl.lal , . -.. et,.,..lnN......,,,-_,ltole~I~ ~~ ....,., .. 1 g

D P,Oj11Wty- .. 1N1119ori;n1Qllllllor- -lfldlol'conlllSII..,..... ~oon-..i IMSI t tpecilll~.

4,

_ , ccnlallll no ......... -*°"" 0

5. ~ - l l o ~ Mlml--.anona PnJpe,ty II ltnponant I I

f. Ownerlhl!) Ind conltol of fie p,q,erly. ~-~owned.

1-11~-

Pnloel1VIS.,._ _ _

0 1

0

7. Tlw...-1 , Endenge,9d 6 Sp.cllt ol Spacill Cclnoem Ooa,me,tt. " ' - a ol Species on ..,. , ,

Pr-.nc,eoll/Wllal ---,,lflunlll fci.'ldontlll Ho dcal,,,.,,ltd Prwenc. o1..- on SIie. 0 0

e. ~ , Endangnd & Lllltd ~ Ooamenlld"'-adSpeclNon 1119 I P-<<nbnl.-lllmallfound onelle Ho - l i d ~ ol . . -.. on*- 0 0 t , Thf811 ot Jou dell!Vdlon from deYtiopmtnl Kliwlel. (D,ve/o,,m,,t'll ~ - } t-ti,,~dcle...._.,.,~

01 I.Ow~~~'!

-*-* --\- '

a I

to. Exltnl lo wlllcn fal1dur* ~ lo Local, Slal9, .nd Fldnl dlwcl* 11114 tlll/ ERP ~ u - Prope,1yll~IK 1 1- l a l l O I ~. 0 Value Cui!ILUM Sc<<* ICSl 7 mel,llgallon a.w SlaStAallillly "'9fulllOnM9111>ola~ 10p,o-,klt1 ~,_d.,..IIIWilntlM,_oldigailan~l".llllllouldbe~lo* ~ - , . . . , ~ Vllue..catN~*rehumlnvakln

.,..,,.,,,_,lobe llnporl9nt lo IOd.iv; lllld ,,.,.lcl9 ... n o t - - It!* purt11 fl.wlt11on11 l!llf)w. FudGnel lilalyala wll onl)o ,.,....... tie cltwNol ~ IICIOlogicll ~ ( ~ ol ~ lfrC)IIMmlllll , . ~ f r o m ~

• CIMIN-1N SS £.......,,,ao*-

~ melllOCIOIOO)'"'lidl

,.,....,,. Ind ~ ~ l o t IICClllal ..,_ NI Hpaln - IIWll!aiel> -

vllvt ,.--, - . t n In 111...,... flan, anaNr N /9CIUIIWd by Ch. <<1-342 ,HO {II (I)) C*) (I') (g) (ll) (I) F.A.C ** The SS ......IIOn la nol 10 be ulllnd ;ti ~Pldlon -..fin

• Nl\cll ~

Evaluaton Sc.a Sfte Su1fab1llfy Ma6ix Slla 81.htiay 10 s~ t.Uillll' ~Scorw(CS) 7

[ill---[m) 0,7 m 11.oel EPA, USACOE, USF & W, FDEP, NMFS, SAYMO, 0.dt 01:RN, FPL, CH J-Apr,H 1.06 Mer Cakulating the Site Suiltbility Score deteonlne !he sne Suitabiity Mul!lpfler by utilizing the Evalu1llon Scale IO the left. The Site Suitability Mulllpller It! IO be nutiplied limes lhl rlllmlMlr of lhl II] -+--11.osl Fundionel Mitigation Credits, resulGng from lhl rw.A.T.E.R.} Fundlooel Auessment of lhl Mitigetlon m 11.041 Bank, to delemllne the number of Site Suitability Crer:frts to be assigned IO thll Mi1lgallon Bank.

m II2fil OJ (1.02(

DJ It.Of(

m m Pfapar.081'.

Cotlwr Hearing 4/6/2004

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion W.A. T.E.R. - Wetfand AaHAment Technique for Environmental Review. Data Collactllcl OIi: OC:T. 22,3003 Projec;t Wtliand H and E lmp1ct1:

Based on WBI, WOI, WR>>. HGM and 41h Pltorlty Project Lilt (PPL) with ladlnlcal advise from EPA. FDEP. >COE.. HMFS. USF & w, SFWMO & On, County (W.A, r L J t . - ~

• L ....,

t*41** ,, ; It Polvnon I WttllndN p ~*; un~ seor:tng CrtteJta *~ WeU.ndH

• • • f*Pre

'tHt'*2nd Impact Wetland E

• Pr*

Wetland E

• Impact

1. ;,,a I ...,,.,,. /ivnctlom,, AMJlvll, hflshwatM, >>ltwater, bnddrh end miflaltion -*m*

u70tmotw--00Nt-..d

_ _ __, 3 Wldlnll bllllt......,,. dapendtn~ o, ~

• Wltlrfo,jl, tllldf rw. ..,.OI P19Y,

___ count.,,., _ _,._, t~--01)1-4 ,

2 3 3 3 0 o.-* .-o1191twd u--~

D 10,more..-*-Olll..-..d 3 b.f,lali 2 3 3 3 0

(~ llnl

• Hllfl tpecSl_,lwl low pof. l'l ll00fll 1 ,-12---~ _....,

I

~ 1 1 1 1 - l~"""-lncniua~klheracotel 0 0 Too rradnv/C81ffioCft) IA>I 11111111---'1 3 c.Malrwnlll ~ - _ . . , . . .lacM!..-1

• II---\ 2 2 2 2 0 (Ml.a.r..-~198(1tccunc*IIOWpep, h -

• 1

~ l l o n . .tcalllft 12~-- l ~ " " " " ' " ° " l

d. Aq&MIC INlaallMftelnlN, 1,..ihll1lw,1 o---

Smallrinllsllodlnta.fle.l (ecl,ll-1ca ...1 tcrmor*---

- obMMd 0

3 2

I 3 3 3 D (loll. Bank- ltah lP'Otoo..llwllOW pop. h llCQl'e 1 1-2 obHIWd 1 Re1tor llon 11111 C:.utel

• Aqu11!c repllet t2"' NV> . ~ l a l l l t tcorel (Mil Sank* HIQII *~OCllnl

• IOw pop. r1 _.. I

---~

0*-*"""""""'OIIHMld Snakes&lUtdl 0

3 2

t 3 3 3 0 Rttto11111on "-1 c,iiaee 1~ nM. lncna-.-hl- ~ ) Ho"4dtn0eol--- 0 Page 1 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion W.A. T.E.R.

• Wetland AaNHment Tec:hnlque for Envtrohmental Revtews 0811 Collecl9d on: OCT. 22,JOOS Profed W1t11nd H end E lmpacta:

Baaed en WBI, WQI, WRNl, HGM and 411'1 Priority Prqec;t Uet (PPL) with le<:hnlcal advise from EPA. FDEP, AC0E. NMF8, USf & W, 8FWMO & o.de Counly (WAT Lit . . . - t,y.

• L Maal

.. ?r>~) ~ *J(1 Pt lvaon Wett nclH Pan;.tiltl.f.!,;lnctl~n -~ rtna=~ --~~-

WetlandH

'*ut'*Pre

'uf*2nd Impact Welland E

• Pre Wtllend E

• Impact

.2. v ~ Fcmctlon* ADt1lv lo,,...,.,, NlfwMw, brlcldsh 1111d mlliaaUon t)'items 0llll'alllt~l'Utly&~~hlllllat(-.

J~-

3

..-i&no ow..1111~..,.. llgr'eol.U..(no._..),._

2 L ~ C'.a009Y 2.6 2 3 0 ltMIIIIINballldla o , - c l a l n l ) l e - I

~flY-OIIIO_._........p,MMl,-&uggNSUI. .

, IIIO!albel 0

-* ___ """'_,.11n~~- 3 to,--.:~d--a,ound00t,oet II......,,

11'11 _ , . >.nl, 11111 ,....,,. ........ .,,.,... - -

I>. VIQlllll'4 ground OIMI' , o,ledool >2'1. bu!

• 3(1,i, 2 2.5 2.6 2Ji 0

~ .,_ Qllllalrll 30% Ill ~()'II, fnal)plOl)jllle Mll>aC.OUI I

or 1..:11 o1........i - >30,l io *7011.

MMltllllfCIIM>tu,o ~lgnu,clco¥WOll9CIII Claffiuftdcco,o,ft >TI>,f. 0

....,,,)1011 t * ~ lllgN)p,wer,t """-1w,age INII l!liclul- >I t/4111. ( - ~ & cwd- 3

~t*~*lOHl-""wWI ..... I N l l - 1 1

c. Pllli9~yt0n mat ,-.aa belwffn 314 "1. to I !14 In. (ec:11¥e& dtlO _ , 2 2 ,.s 2 0 Pellphyton 1,....-9'Nfl ligltl ~Nnl""" ~ mat - - - 5

- 1/4 in. lo !114111. tact.. & Oeed 111-1 1

~ ( ~ IIQNlnol P,.-Wol ctr p,uanl wllll a.. rage

...,,._of0,0 10 114 In, tect\Oe&Olad _ , 0 c(O,*IO) I 'No DOiie""""-  :,

d. Calgor, 1 and Clll-oo,y 2 IXOllc Dlenlll ct (non-'114) '>l'llolOIO'lloDOlk:.-- 2 3 3 3 0

• pecle* >10"

>&5'11o IOll6~

__ uodcllianlOCMI/

_ 1 0

>l ,.,....-eornmunlftloo,11111...,_ta.....,,l.,.a 3

1. H1bltatd"'-'ity(~M) 1 2 << 3 - - ~ 0 f l ... ...., _ l _ 2 2 2 2 0

,~__,,-) 1 -IP<<lee~M11175~IOOO'llo~-

f, Blological itYll'lity wtil 3000 fNI

...-icaiea I IWMac,ecMcomnunil)lllll>OO'llo-.ga

~311-~---*

2I031111nahe,....

1 ........... 111111,1 1

0 3

2

, 3 3 3 0

, _ _ , _ , l/2 ... .lam * " ' - - - ,

Siff,el'labfla!- 0 , . . . . -.. , ........... 0 Page 2of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluatlon Matrix Turkey Point Expansion W.A. T.E.R.

• Wetland Aaaenm&nt Technique for Environmental Reviews Dala CollectMI Oft: OCT, .t2,J003 ProJICt Wnand H and E lmplc;U:

Based on WBI, WCI, WAAP, HGM and 4th Pr1ortty Project Ust {PPL) wi1h technical advlae from EPA. FOE?, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & o.d* Count)' [W.A.T.EJl.-w. ML.I,!. .)

~<*.-!~ ~ . '* Polygon Wetlaftd" P1ra~r/.'Func$n scor1no,:Qrtt.11, Rdnas Wetland H '*Nt'*2nd W*ll1nd E-

'NSf'*Prw Impact Wdand E*Prw Impact

.t. Function*

~.,......,,-._...,..,,,_,,._

• • Surfllol w i.r h)'llrclogy I IIINI flaw 1.._conn__,~~-0,..,....., _ _

l,lodirale~ , _ _ o l _ o r ~ - * >>

~connecllon{1ftltoll~{Klltt.or _ _ . , . . , _

~

3 2

1 2.! u u 0 lf)dOIOgkaly....,_ noft91....,._I 0

> I ~ ~ ...r\llO ........ &__,. 3

b. H)Oopill1oG monllla <,_...Of

....,,,.,,,..tw..,,on_,,_, >G ya,, 0Qfllllluoul lftll'dllol><-lor 2

>lmonlh <Sffl0f'lllll,,.W,POellllJlll,.....i-r11tlNlllDl'l111& I

-** -Ison--)

• 4- ~-n,nlallon01*2-~ 0 lru1CIM0n

>!Ow. . a l ~ lnundlion lnt<ldNI IOiJ u..,_lc,n 3

> 0-"-1>u1 < 1 0 - o f ~ ~ lno,,dlrlgllOI 2

b-f A/lw,-fOA for sallnllcn 1

Sl'iol1 tfydrope,lod (l'l()lllla ,..,, " " ' tyllefflt: >2 - bul C S - r:I Jt11,..IIOII, __,,, lOll ..llllalk)n 0

"2 ....... a l ~ lnl,,r,dllion lllundNd bv ~ hlnft adn 3 b-1 Allw,,.,_ 1111 II- lo, IIUIClaledlw_. hlmllOn _ , 2 3 3 3 0 Slltwaltr, iw.ctllll (-.UIJ ~ _bV-...._-*11111,wu,-_, 1 ll"lllllde..Oh'_..,,_......, 0 lnundllecl 11\1 Nlil' "lpMg" lclll (ll'CIIINy) ll'ld llulllld by hlll walet

.,__,o.---, 3

~IIY~"IPflnv"ldN{monNy)w'ldlullldlly~Wlllf 2 a-J AlrwNIW 10 t,. lo, ~---:io-on . , . , _

High Ma/WI (Junca.,1,0litlaild) Jnundllecl Ill' Ngll "IDl!no" IICln(IIIOIIIN\,lM ...,,,,.Id to ,-in on!, 1 hn!aladl,y~----IOtlin"""' 0 rnunoe11c111yi.i,,~(o1y).-,~...., INinlalnl 1t.sn 3

- al laM lnlO 1114 hall ol drt IMllDl'I

........-iuy~':,;~~* :- r_._ .. ..,_11w.1 2 M JI.Jfwry,. 1111 A for

_.., ,,.._11_n1rw_

...,,..,.,wll)'ny*-**-***- r--,, .,..,,w..., llij1-1 , -

~-~

1-111'*---~,---"~

-l ol"""' wl*IIINllYI t

0 Page 3 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Envlronmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Project WeUand Hand E Impacts:

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO & Dade County (W.A.T.E.R crutedby* Bill L Ma,s)

Polvaon Wetland H WeUandH 'east' *2nd Wetland E*

'tut' *Prt Impact Wetland E

• Pr* Impact 3, Hvdrofoalc Functions continued

>1 ft. wat1rdeplh for atleast 2.5montha and <6 tn. tor >1 month (measure water marl</ lichen line). or water depth Ideal lor speclftc 3 wetland SY!llem.

>6 In to 1 ft, tor at teaat 2.5 months (measure water marl</ lichen line) 2

c. Hydropattem (fl'eSh system) or water deoth bOraenlne over or under for aoeclflc wetland svstem

<6 In. rot II least 2.5 mGnlhs (measure water marl</ llehen line) or wate

'deoth lnconect tor specfflc wetland ayatem 1

<6 In. In association with either canals, dltclies, swatea, cutverlS, pumpe, end/or welifteldS, or lhese factors cause water depth to be too 0 deep for 1MC1ftc svstern.

>1 ft, water deDlh <2 ft. on 90% hlah tides 3 C*1 A/female to c. for > eIn. water d""lh <1 ft. on >50% hiah lkl89 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 Saltwater, brackish (Udal) systems < 8 In. water dAnth , but > than saturated 1 Saturated bv saline water table onlv 0

>10 In. water depth <2 ft . on regular baSls du~na arowlna season 3 c-t A/female to c. for >5 In. to 10in, water deDlh on mautar basis du~na orowino season 2 High Mansh (Juncus-Olstlchlls) >1 In. to 5 In. water deoth on regular basts du~na arowtna season 1

>O.0 In, to 1 In. water """lh soaradlcaliv du~no orowlno season 0

>2 ft. water deDth rmaln channel\ <8 ft. tor 8 months 3 c.J A/Ntrna,. to c. for >2 ft. water dMllh !main Channell <4 ft. for 8 months 2 Riverine systems > t ft. water d"""' Imain channel 1<2.5 ft. ror 4 monthl 1

<1 ft, waterdMlh butdrvlor>4 weeks Cdrvseasonl 0

~ .... .. **-. - . ... ,....... ... . . ..

Page 4 ofS

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collecttd on: OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland H and E Impacts:

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA, FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO & Dade County (WAT.E.R. - b y: BIii L. M...l ,. ___

- . - -- ~ " .. .. . *-. ""- *** ....

O,_,t 1* '.JOI~ Polygon wetland H

-* ipatlrilitet/lf.i4fictlon

3. Hvdroloalc Functions continued Scoring Criteria

• • --' WetlandH

• eaat*

• Pre

'east' *2nd Impact Wetland E

• Pre Wetland E*

Impact r<O ..,,cauon or poor wamr qua111y .,_,es~., requ,,...., ao va ... s w11nn 3

"""""table range)

No v,sua1 1nC11ca..,.. 01 poor water quamy oosa,...., 1 va1ue Just over or

d. Water auamy under a"""""'ble ,anaAI 2 2 2 2 0 vr.,ual '""""'"'"' or POOr water que111y quest1ona01e ti va1ues over or under acceotable """'81 f 1/laual lnclcaror1 of poor waler quallly ObSeNed o, tab verified (values 0

are our or """"""'ble ranae I Unattered 3

e. lnlaclneas of historic topography (soil dlsturt>ance) SllahUv altered sou dlslurt>ance, < 10% of assessment area 2 3 2.5 1.5 0 MO<le1'11Alv altered SOIi disturt>ance, < 25% of assesament area 1 Extremely altered aoll disturbance, may eKcaed 60% of assessment area 0 Organic SOIi dasslfted hyd~c son >12 In. or any lhlckness o-bedroek/caprod< with pen:hed water table and either condillon covering 3

>1'10% of surface area Organic soil cla&llfled hydrie SOIi *8 In. but <12 In. and covertng >90%

2

r. SOIis, organic (frellll aysrems) of surface area Organic soil Classified hydrlc soll >1 In. bul <8 In. and covering >50% 1 but <90% of surface area Organic 1011 dasslfled non-hydrlc soil <1 In. lor >50% of surface area 0 sandy SOIi ctasslfted hydrtc SOil with diSlincl mottling and conaelions 3

'""'""nl In 0<eater than 40% of honzon.

Sandy SOIi classified hydrlc soll with mowing and concreUons present In 2

f.1 A/lematw lo r. for > 20% but < 40% of hor1zon.

Fnnhwater, saltw- systems Sandy 1011 dasslfled hydrlc aOff with llghl 0< spar19 mottling and 1

conaetlona < 2 mm diameter or< 20% of horizon.

Sandy SOIi etchlblls strong evidence of dlslult>ance or mechanical 0

manloulallens or II fin malel'lal.

calcareous 10am >12 In. and >90 % of surface area 3 f.2 Alt1matw to f, for C&lcareoua loam >6 In. 10 <12 In. and >90% of surface area 2 3 3 3 0 Frt~r. sa/lwattr, bracldSh (tldl/1 systems Calcareous loam >1 In. lo <6 In. and covering >50% but <90% of 1

!lllrfacear,..

Calcareous roam <1 In. for >50% of surface area 0 Page 5 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland H and E Impacts:

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project Ust (PPL) with technical advise from EPA, FOEP,ACOE, NMFS, USF & W,SFWMD & Dade County (WAT.E.R.createdby: BIIL.MausJ

. - ... ~- ' ,,, ,,.,. -

t*tJl *.dJ:'-11 Polvaon 1

wetranoH Para~tcwr/$uncttcm *scJr1ng 'Cd.ter.Ja *'Mllntli*:

WetlandH 'ea1r 0 2nd Wetland E

• t , .. . .. . .. . ... , .. *-*******- -**

'easr -Pre Impact Wetland E

• Pre Impact

4. Sallnlty Parameters Apply to freshwater, aa/lWaler, btacldsh, hYJHl(UNne and mitigation systems

• Choose 1

<2 parts per lhOusand (ppl) 3

• Optimum &allnlty for fresh systems during growing 2 ro 3 pans per lllousand (llPll 2 seaaon based on mean high eallnlty for a normal year. 4 to 5 pa,1s par thousand (ppl) 1

~ " ' ,,...,,.,,,,., s)'fltlns - 6 ml/es di/le coast >5 parts per lhousand (ppt) 0 a-1. Alternate to a. 810 8 pans per lhoutand (pptl 3 Optimum salinity for brackish sy1ta1111 during growing 9 to 13 parts per thousand (PP4l 2 season baaed on mean high sallnlty for a normal year. 1410 18 parts par lhOUSllnd (ppt) 1 Apply to b - h (Ilda/) systems only >18 parts per thousand (ppl) 0

• • 2, A/temate to a. 17 to 19 parts per lllousand (ppt) 3 Optimum sallnlty for ealine systems during growing 20 to 22 parts per lhOusand (ppl) 2 3 2,5 2.5 0 season baaed on mean high sallnlty for a normal year. 23 to 25 parts per thOusand (ppt) 1 Apply to 111111111 marsh (tidal) systems only >25 parts per thousand (ppt) 0 a-3. Alternate to ,. 26 to 41 par1S per thousand (ppt) 3 Op~mum salinity for hypersallne aystema during growing 42 to 46 parts per thOus.lnd (ppl) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a normal yaar. 47 to 51 parts per thOusand (ppt) 1 Apply to hypertBllne (tidal) ,rstlffls only >51 parts per thousand (J)pl) 0

• Altemate Ill** l>0ltom oower) third between t 2 10 25 ppt 3 OpClmum salinity for rlverlne/tldal creak aysrem during middle third between 5 to 1t ppt.

growing season based on mean high slalnity for a normal upper (lop) lhlrd betweem Oto 4 ppt.

)'llar, bottom (lower) third between 25 to 32 ppt 2 Apply to tfve~n* system, only mlddle third between 6 10 24 pp!.

• upper (top) third betweem Oto 5 ppl.

bottom (lower) third between 30 to 40 ppt 1 middle third between 8 10 29 ppt.

upper (lop) third betweem Oto 7 ppt.

bottom (IOwerl third between 35 10 50 PP4 0 middle third between 10 to 34 ppt.

upper (top) third betweem Oto GPPL cumulative Score ,sc) 48.o 45.0 45.6 o.o W.A.T.E.R. rrut<<sby: snt L. M111* Maximum possible Score !MPS ,---=54:.;;_" "oo..-----.,;s,;;-.oo~----54""-'_oo;;r.------54,,,;.:;_oo~--

11/111995 w.A,T E,R. =Cumulative Score/Maximum Possible Score o.ee o.83 o.84 o Page6 of6

FPL Everglades Mitigation Bank Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation (MBSE) Matrix Page 1 of 1 Parameters Turkey Point Expansion

• Australian Pine Ribs Enhancement (Sle Sullllllll!v created bY: Oonaldlon Hearing!

i* -** ---* .~....-... ~

• "~"--*-- , . "' .... "'" ..bQ.IINlt.r ... ....... ' " ' " '" ' " * ."I', ' "" ,,,,.,. **~" . , . . . _._ _, ,.,~**

• h**-., ' _,,,,.-,__ ,""-* """ <-' ***-***** * '""" ,.Semf~:; c ~ ,_,,._.."*""'"~ ... .~.--~ . ,. .... , ...,.,.,.,..,.,. .,..,.... .*~Rail"""*,.

~

• ,r* -.~-.,:..J

1. Adjacentto lands or waters of regional mpottance and results In ldenllflable State Park, OFW, AP, and lnctuc:ttng but not lilllled to Special Walen; on at leest 1 boundary 1

..,.nin.,ical benefits to adlacent lands or watens. A~'-nl ...

lands contain no """"*I deslnn*tion or undestanated $""'"al value 0 0

2. Property Is wilflln boundary of an ac:lmowtedged state, local or regional acquisition program Property ts within boundary of an acquisition program 1 PMnAttv is not within boundarv of an acaulsltlon nmnram 0 0

3. Prope,ty contains ecoJoglcal or geological features conslatenUy considered by regional Properly quallfoes 1 ScienUst or federal and &tlte aaenclea to be unusual uniaue or rare In the ,_,on and la of sufficient size P=rtv does not aualltv 0 0

4. t'fOll9ltY dealgnareo n oetng of cnUc:al state or federal ooncem and/or contains SPeciat designations, Property conlains at least 1 special designation. 1 Pto""rtv contains no scectat <tA.<klnatfons. 0 0

5. Property Important lo acknowledged restoration e11orta Property ts Important 1 1 Property ts not lmoortant. 0

e. Ownllf9hlp and control of the property. Property ts privately owned. 1 1 Property ts publtdv owned. 0

7. Threatened , Endangered & SpeciH af Special Concem Oocumented Presence of Spscies on Sile 1 1 Presence of animal soecles lfaunall found on site No documented Presence of s"""'es on site. 0

a. Threatened , Endangered & Listed Species Documented Presence of Species on site 1 Presence of olant aoecles lftorall found on elte No documented Presence of soecles on site. 0

- . .. - . ~ .~ --- ***-* - ** ** - . --- .. ... , . -** ** **** ... . --- ..0 ** *- ..

9. Threat of loss or deal/\lctlon from development actlviUes. (Development Pressure) High p,ot,elllR!y.cl development. 1 1

10. Extent to which lands are subject to Local, State, and Federal drvdge and fill/ ERP Regulations

.. - **-- . ... , . , - . ---~-;,,.,., ------ . -

Property is regulated.

Low Jl(Obabilly cl deY910pmenl

,....... . ,,., "'"-------- * *- - - - ** rr ...... . -.,~ - .1,;,~

0

' -- ~- ..

1 1

PrnnArty Is not teoulated. 0 Value CumutaUve Score (CS) 5 The Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation Matl\ll is deSigned to provide a quanUf11ble means of detennlning the number of mitigation cradtts that should be assigned to a barflwllle* related parameters. Value related parameters are human values detenntned to be Important to society; and thetefore are not measurable tn a purely functional analysis. Fl.l>dlonat analysis will only measure tile degree of functional ecotoglcat Improvement (degree OI ecological Improvement) resutUng from mttJgatJon activttles. Tlle SS Evaluation measures and prc,,;ldes credit lor sodetat values that separate one mitigation bank from another aa required by Ch.62-342 ,470 {a){b) (e) (0 {g) {h) (I) F.A.C .. The SS evaluation ts not to be utilized in conjunetion with a funct nat analysis methodology whteh also utllites value related parameters In tis analysis, Evaluation Scala Sile SultablHty Maximum Possible Score MPS 10 Sultabllttv Multloller CumulaUve Score CS

[ill ---11.10! o.s

[I] l1.oe1 EPA, USACOE, USF & W. FDEP, NMFS, SJ=WMD, Dade DERM, FPL, CH rn j1.os1 3-Apr-96

[TI [ill)

After Calculating the Sije Suitability Score determine the Site Suitability Multiplier by utilizing the Evaluation Scale to the left. The Site Suitability MulUpller Is to be multiplied times the number of the Functional Mitigation Credits, resulting from the r,J.A.T.E.R.) Functional Assessment of the Mitigation

.4 1.04 Bank, to determine the number of Site Suitability Credits to be assigned to the Mitigation Bank.

OJ ---11.03!

DJ 11.021 DJ 11 .011 m rn Prepared By:

Cotleur Hearing 4/6/2004

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function -- Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A. T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Colltc:ted on: OCT, 22,200S Creation Mitigation: Australlan Pine Ribs Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA, FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO & Dade County r,i.A. T.E.R. - by. BIii L Maui)

?,:,~* ,; , 1 Polygon Polygon Polvaon -:1 '.J , / i ',)1  ;.., *_jl *l.1**1, 1 uptana Ribs of Ribs wetland Uplana Ribs of K111acreate UplanaRIDs Pmmeter/'Functlo.n Scortng Crltetta Ritlnot PllotCanals 1&2 creatlon1 &2 PllotCanals Jwenlle Croc Remove

- ., .. ~ .. .... Pre* 'scrapedown' 3&4&5Pre* ponds3&4 Exotics 3, 4 & 5 1, Fish & WIidiife Functions ADDlv to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation syrtams 7 ot more s"""'es commonlv observed 3

• • Waterfowl, wading birds, wedand dGl)endent. or aquatic 3-6 ,.,.,,,,es commonlv observed 2 0 2 0 2 1 birds of prey. 1-2 """'"es commonlv observed 1 MIL Bank. Hinh""""'* count wt low"""* #'s score 1 O s=*es commonlv ob5erved 0 7 or more soeefes commonlv obseflled 3

b. Fish ' 3-6 snAlies c:ommonlv observed 2 0 N/A 0 0.5 N/A (Mil. Bank

• High spade count wt low pop. #'& score 1 1-2 SM<ies eotnmonlv observed 1 RestoraUon that causes 12% DOD, lncreases-hiaher score\ O,__.._ commonlv observed 0 Too oradator tcamivonsl &/or laroe mammals c:.Mammals 3

2 ,

(MIL Bank

• High specie count wt low pop. #'s score 1 Medium sized mammals , (adult welaht > 6 lbs. l Small animals troden1s, etc. I . tadult weiaht < 6 lbs. I , 0 2 0 1.5 Rest013don that causes 12% 000. lnc:reases-hloher score l 0 soecle9 onssent 0 7 or mons soecies commonly observed 3

d. Aquatic macrotnvertebrates, amphibians (Mtt. Bank

• High spade count wt tow pop. #'s score 1 3-6 soecles commontv observed 1-2 species commontv Ollserved ,

2 0 1 0 3 0.5 Restoration that causes 12% DOD, tnc:reases-hlaher score\ O.,,..,.ies commonlv observed 0 Larae soecles observed 3

• • Aquatic reptiles (MIi. Bank* High specie count wt low pop. #'s score ,

Aouatic turtles Snakes & lizards ,

2 0 3 0 0 Restoration that causes 12% nnn, Increases-higher scorel No evidence of soecies pnssent 0 Page 1 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L; Mau. & Karl Bullock W.A. T.E.R. - Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT, 22,2003 Creation Mitigation: Australian Pine Ribs Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA, FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO & Dade County ....

(WATER. - by: 81 L M-)

.,,, . ,. *-***"' - ~--* **~ ., **--- *- *--~*-* **-- ** H ~ -~- . -- .. -* ....

!-'*,, , , , I Polyaon Polygon Polvaon  :"-'c , '* -*.-_ ~ C1°; _*;.:,,, 1 Upland Ribs of Klas wetlana Upland Ribs of Ribs create Upland Ribs Pa~erl Funcuon Scoring Crtterta Rallnga PllotCanals 1 &2 creatlon1&2 PllotCanals Juvenile Croc Remove

. ..... ... . .. .. .... --*** Pre- 'scrapedown' 3&4&5 Pre* pond13&4 Exotica 3, 4 & 5

2. v-tatlve FuncUons Anntv to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mftlgaUon svstems Dealrable 1'8es/alwub healthy & providing apprcpnate habitat (seedlingl 3 present) & no lnalllll'00riaIa SDaCies Desirable trees/llhrubs exhibit signs of S1ress (no seedlings) few 2

a. Overstorylshrub canopy lna00roDriate s"""'es present 0 3 0 NIA NIA lnappropriale trees/shrubS Shading or overcoming desirable tree/shrub! 1 very unre or no ..-,ra01a irea,snrubS present 1e-nce suggests mere

......,.-- . ~~ ~.. ,,._,~*---*"' ,. ~*--d-.. . . uu,.., ... ,."

Shooldbel 0 Atsessmant aiea exhil>lts <2% lnappropr1afe ner1>aceous ground cover for sDA<:iflc wetland svstems and groundcover Is present 3 AssessmenI area contains ~~ but c.,.,,. 1nappr"l"..,Ie heroaceous

b. Vegelative ground cover """*ndcover, or lack of aroundcovar >2% but< 30% 2 0 3 0 NIA 1 Assessment area con_ talns >30% to <70'4 Inappropriate herl>aceous 1

aroundcover. or lack of ground cover :.30% to <70%

Assessment area :.70% ineppt0priaIe herbaceous groundcover or lack of aroundcoYer >70% 0 Penphyton (Blue-green algae) present with average mat thickness >1 114 in. /measure active & dead laverl 3 Penphyton (B1ue11raen algae) present with average mat thlcluiess

c. Periphyton mat coverage between 314 In. to 1 114 In. (active & dead layer) 2 0 NIA 0 0 NIA Periphylon (Blue1)faen algae) present with*average mat thickness between 1/4 in. to 314 In. (active & dead layer) 1 Penphyton (Blue1)feen algae) not pr-nt or ff pressent with average thickness of o.o to 114 In. (act!Ve & dead taverl 0

<tor~ tel 1 % exotic Diani cover 3

d. Categoiy 1 and Categoiy 2 exoUc plants or (non-native) >1 % to 10 *4 exotic Diani cover 2 0 3 0 NIA 3 species >10 % to 65 % exotic olant cow, 1

> 65 % exouc olant cover 0

>3 nallve species communilles on site within assesssment area 3

e. Habitat diversity (vegelatlve) 2 or 3 native specie communl1Jes on slte within assessment area 2 0 1.5 0 0 0 1 nauve species community with 75 °4 to 90 % coverage wllhln

/wlfhln assessment 8198) assessment area 1 1 native species community has > 90 % coverage within assessment area 0

> 3 altematlve hal)flats avanable (indudlna upland) 3

f. Biologlcal diversity wilhin 3000 feet 2 to 3 altemaUve habitata 2 0 3 0 2 2

/appro,lmafely 112 mile from tdge o/ Mnssment 1111) 1 altemaUve habitat 1 same habitat I~ or inaooroMate / lmoacted 0 Page 2 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function ** Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A. T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Envlronmental Reviews Data COiiected on: OCT. 22,2003 Creation Mitigation: Australian Pine Ribs Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL)wlth technical advise from EPA FOEP ACOE NMFS USF & W SFWMO & Dade County .. .

(WATER aeated by* Bill L Maus)

' ---~- . ,. ' ' . . ****-* . .*

F'*)l J' -' ,. Polygon Pofvaon Polvaon  ?' *:ii/(IU1, P -:d*, .. *1 *:11, Upland Ribs of Ribs wetland -Uplandlflbsof lffl>s create Upland Ribs Plu111rnetet/,Function $eortng;:Criterla Ratll)9S PllotCanals 1 &2 creatlon1 &2 PllotCanals Juvenile Croc Remove

~- Pre, 'scrapedown' 3&4&5 Pre, ponds3&4 Exotics 3, 4 & 5

• • * ***--*- .. ... -* ..- . "' . -* -* * -- ***~'"**~*-**~~ .. ..- ... -- .***- ***~*- ***- *~ ** sa *

• _ _, .. .......,. ,, ~--** ........

, ' ****** .,.*,-**-*~--

3. Hi,d,ofatJIC Functions Major connection (Flowing waler/ ,tver or floodplain/ unlfotm llow through nBhnl systems!

3 Moderate connection ( /Vaturll reslrfcl/on of now or Flowing wattr duo to

a. Surface water hydrology I sheet flow h.,..,,,,,,,.,,ena/llfltrlno) 2 0 2 0 0 0 jApply to rn,shwaltr, *-ter, btael<lsh and mil/gal/On S)'Slams Minor connection (RUtlO/f collsctJon point or une,vo llow due to bonns, 1

dlfchls, roadwa)'S etc.)

Hydrologically Isolated, no net lateral movement 0

> 8 monthS Inundated with no reversals & every year drydown 3

>S months < 8 months 0( >S years conllnuous Inundation (look fO(

2

b. HydroperiOd (nonnal year) fresh systems strona water stains on persistent V"""lalionl 2 0

>1 month < 5 months, with possible reversals (look.for soft 0( less 1 distinct water stains on persistent vegetation!

< 4 weeks cumulative annual Inundation 0( < 2 weeks continuous 0

Inundation

>10 weeks of continuous Inundation Including so11 saturation 3

> 6 weeks but <10 weeks of continuous Inundation Including soil b-1 Alternaf* to b. for 2

saturation 0 3 0 1

Short HydroperlOd (normal year) fresh systems: >2 weeks but <6 weeks of lnudallon, lncludlna soil saturation 0

<2 weeks of contlnuos lnundallon Inundated bv >90% hlah tides o ,*;.>>>#

b-2 A/lernat* to b. for Inundated bv *sonna* hlah tides tbl-monthlvl 2 Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems Inundated bv 'extrema hlah" tides onlv lblannuallvl 1 Inundated bv slonn suroes onlv 0 Inundated by high *sprtng" !Ides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water 3 sheel!low everv 10 davs averaae Inundated by high 'spring* tides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water 2

b-3 Allern*te ta b. for sheelflow ev= 30 days on lhe averaae High Marsh (Juncus-DlsUchlls) Inundated bv hlah *sonng' tides (monlhly)and exposed to rain only 1 Inundated by >50% hloh tides and exposed to rain only 0 Inundated by high tides (dally) and/0( recieves and maintains fresh water at least into first half ot drv season 3 nundaled by high Udes 1oa11y) and/or recleves and maintains fresh

,,.., Alternate to b. for water durlna ralnv season onlv 2 Riverine systems nundated by high uoes (daily) and/or rec,evas tresh water Dul does not maintain (reversal) durlna ralnv season 1 Inundated by sprtng uoes (bl-monthly) and/or experiences frequent reversate of fresh waler (ffashvl 0 Page 3 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: Bill L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E;R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Envlronmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Creation Mitigation: Australian Pine Ribs Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project Ust (PPL) with technical advise from EPA. FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County (W.A.T.E.R, Clll8led by. BIi L. Maus)

Pol,;; :,., Polygon Polygon Polygon .~*) 1*,*(Jvi o\..,J**,' 1(\n Upland Ribs of Rlbswetlana UplanCI Ribs of Ribs create Upland Ribs Parameter1:Fant11on $cortng-Grttei1a  :,tat1"9ll PllotCanals 1&2 creatlon1&2 PllotCanals Juvenile Croc Remove Pre* 'scrapedown' 3&4&5Pre- ponds3&4 Exotics 3, 4 & 5

3. Hvdroloalc Functions continued

>1 l'l water deplh for at least 2.6 months and <8 In. for >1 month (measure water marl</ llchen line), or water deplh Ideal for specific 3 wetland svstem.

>6 In to 1 ft. for at least 2.6 months (ffl88SIJM water mall</ lichen line) 2

c. Hydropattem (fresh system) or water deoth bordentne over or under for !<NINfir. welland svstern 0 3 0 3 0

. <6 in. for at least 2.5 months (measure water marl</ Nchen line) or wate, deplh Incorrect for sneciflc wetland system

<6 In. In association wtth either canals, dltehes, swales, culvens, 1

pumps, and/or wellllelds, or these factors cause water depth lo be too 0 deeo for a-.Jfic avstem.

>1 ft. water deoth <2 ft. on 90% hlah tides 3

.,. , Afl'wm*retoc. fo, > 6 In. water d""1h <1 ft. on >60% high tides 2 Saltwater, brackish (Udall systems < 6 in. water dacth cul > than saturated 1 Saturated bv satlne water lable onlv 0

,,. ..... .,.,.,., . . ~** '" ,., ~..-, ,,,...._ " *v**** - **** . ---"'~*- ..... , . _.,... . , ,,,. *....... "" " .>< ..

. "' "*' ' __ ,.. ',.__ ,~,....... ,,. .., ... *-** .... ,..........,. ...-~..........~-...,............... .......~,--* ., .... ~-...-

. ._, " ' ~-->* ._.. , . ... _ ,... , - *,n.:..~ ,- ~.,_-_.,,,_, ,. ,. .. ,.,, - --* **' ** =-' *' -** -* -~" ,.~., '* "" '* .. ----"~

>10 In. water deoth <2 ft. on reaular baSls dUring arowlna season 3 c*2 A/l'wmare ro c. fo, >5 in. to 101n. water depth on regular basis durina arowlng season 2 High Marsh (Juncus..OlsHchlls) >1 in. to 6 in. water depth on n1aular baSls dunna arowina season 1

>0.0 In. to 1 In. water IIAnth """"'dieallv durina arowlna season 0

>2 ft. water depth (main channel\ <6 ft. for 8 months 3 c-3 A"9rn1111 ro c. for >2 ft. water deoth Cmaln Channell <4 ft. for 6 months 2 Riverine systems >1 ft. water depth (main Channell <2.6 ft. for 4 months 1 0

. . .. **' * ..... ... <1 ft. water deoth bUtdrvfor >4 weeks ldrv season I

.. .. *-* * *-- -- ...... ... -*-* --~- . ** - * - ..... . ..

• Page 4 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L; Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R. -Wetland Assnsment Technique for Environmental Reviews Dall Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Creation MHlgatlon : Australian Pine Ribs Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA, FDEP, ACoe, NMFS . .,____,_. , & w SFWMD & Dade County USF (WA.TE . ___.R.....created by. BIi L Mauo)

,. _ .. .. - **-* ... .. ... . ....... ... . . ... ......... ___,. . ~

i ** --* ,.

l' F *,1.:.,-*

• Polygon Polygon Polygon P;..1 i :r1"*1\ ;_* ,1: y ** 'J I I 0 Upland Ribs of Ribs wetland Upland RIDS of Ribs create Upland RIDS l

I P*.....terfFunctlon Scoring criteria IRatiifaa I

. . L **** *** ** *'

PllotCanala 1 &2 Pre*

creatlon1&2

'acrapedown' PllotCanals 3&4&5Pre-Juvenile Croc ponds3&4 Remove Exotics 3, 4 & 5

3. Hvdro/oa/c Functions continued IND 1nacauon OJ poor wa~r ng requ,rea, a* va,ues w,.,,n acceptable range) 3 INO 111sua1 ,na,caum 01 poor water qua11iy uuoarvw 11 va1Ue ~

• over or d, Waler Quality under acceotable ,annAI 2 a 2 0 2 NIA v1sua11n111cat01S or poor water quality quasuonable (2 values over or under acceolable ranoel 1 Vlsual lndfallol'II of poor waler quallly obserVed Of lab verified (values 0

are oul of acceolable mnael Unaltered 3

e. Intactness of hlstoric topography (soil disturbance) Slightly altered SOIi disturbance, < 10% of assessment araa 2 a 0 0 0 0 Modemtelv altered soil disturbance, < 25% of assessment araa 1 Extremely allered soil dlslurbance, may exceed 50% of assessment

... area 0 Organic soil Classlfted hydrlc son >12 In. or any thickness over bedrocl</caproek wllh perched waler table and ellher condition covering 3

>90% of surface araa Ofganlc soil Classified hydtlc soil >6 in. bul <12 In. and covertng >90%

2

f. Soils, organic (trash systems) of surface area Organic soff classmea hydrlc sol! >1 In. bul <6 In. and covertng >50%

1 but <90% of surface area Organic soil classified non-hydrlc sol! <1 In. for >50% of surface area 0 Sandy soll Classified hydrtc soil wllh dislincl mottling and concreuons 3

oresent in oreater lhan 40% of hortzon.

Sandy sou Classified hydric soil wllh mottUng and concretions presenl In 2

1-1 Altern,te to f. for > 20% bul < 40% of horizon.

Fresnwater, ultwater sysfams Sandy soil classified hycfric Soll wllh llghl or sparse monllng and I

concretions < 2 mm dlameler or < 20% of horizon .

Sandy soil exhibits strong evidence ol dlslUrbance or mechanical manf P<Jtauons o, Is fill malerlal.

0 Calcareous loam> 12 In. and >80 % ol surface area 3 f*2 Alternate to f. for Calcareous loam >6 In. to <12 In. and >90'At of surface area 2 0 3 0 2 0 Fteshwar,r, saltwater, brackish (Udal) system* Calcareous loam >1 in. to <6 In. and cove<1ng >50o/, bul <80% of 1

surface area calcareous loam <1 In. for >50% of surface area 0 Page 5 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for .Environmental Re\'lews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Creation Mitigation: Australian Pine Ribs Based on WBI, WQI, WRAf>, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA, FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County r,,tAT.E.R, CINtedby. 11111 L M8US)

~ ** ., ~ - ., Polvgon Polvaon Polvaon ~-',*,; ( t, *) I ,->. ,1.;*qon

'. upland Ribs Of RIDS wetland Upland Ribs of RIDS create Upland RIDS Parametert:Fuoc.u~n Scortng Criteria RaUngs.\ PllotCanals 1&2 Pre-creatlon1&2

'ecrapedown' PllotCanale Juvenile Croc ponds3&4 Remove Exotics 3, 4 & 5

....J 3&4&5Pre-

4. Sallnlty Parameters Apply to fnllhwater, sattwater. braclc/Sh, hypers,nne and m/llgal/oll systems

• Choose 1

<2 parts per lhousand (ppt) 3

• • Optimum salinity for fresh systems during growtng 2 to 3 parts per thousand (ppt) 2 0 3 0 3 NIA season based on mean high saHnlty for a normal year. 4 10 5 parts per thousand (pp!) 1 Apply to lre$hwale, sys,.,,,s within 5ml,.s cl lhe coal! >5 parts per thousand (ppt) 0

• • 1. Altllfnate to a. 6 10 8 parts per thousand (ppl) 3 Optimum salinity for braekish systems during growing 910 13 parts per lhousand (PPI) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 14 to 16 parts per lhousand (PPII 1 Apply to flrack/Sh.(Udlll/ S)ISlems only >16 parts per lhousand (ppt) 0 l*Z. Altem*te to a. 17 I0 19 parts perlhoosand (PPII 3 Optimum salinity for saline systems during growing season based on mean high salinity for a normal year.

20 10 22 pans per thousand (PPO 23 lo 25 pans per thousand (ppt) ,

2

~ to sa//lle ml/Sh (tidal/ systems only >25 parts per lhousand (!>Pt) 0

,.,. Alternate to a. 26 lo 41 pans per thousand (pp!) 3 Optimum salinity for hypersallne syslems during growing 42 to 46 parts per lhousand {ppl) 2 season based on mean high sallnily tor a nonnal year. 47 lo 61 parts per lhoosand (ppt) 1 IA.a,,/y IO hype,sa/lne (Udall .systems only >51 parts per thousand (pp!) 0 a...f Alternate to ** bottom (lower) third between 12 lo 25 ppl 3 Optimum salinity for rtvertne/Udal creek system during middle lhlrd belween 5 10 11 pp!.

growing season based on mean high slalnily for a normal upper (lop) lhlrd be1weem O10 4 ppt.

year. bottom (lower) lhird between 25 lo 32 ppt 2 AP(iy to riverine .systems only middle lhlrd between 610 24 ppt.

upper (lop) lhlrd belweem O10 6 pp!.

bottom Oower) lhlrd belween 30 lo 40 pp! 1 middle third belween 8 10 28 pp!.

upper (lop) lhird belweem Oto 7 ppt bOttom 00Wer) !hill! between 35 to so ppl 0 middle third belween 10 10 34 ppl.

upper (lop) lhird belweem O 10 8 ppt I cumu1auve score 1sci __~o..,.o.,..._ _ _ _3.,_1.,..s,..._ _ _....,,.o__.o,...._ _ _ _,.20,..,.,..,s_ _ _ _..,.,,10;..;.o,..,..._ _ _ _ _ _ __

W.A.T.E.lt CIWlttd by: B/11 L. Maus Maximum Possible score IMPS 1___54...,..o...o _ _ _ _ _4_a._oo_______54_.o_o______4_6_.o_o_ _ _ _ _3_9_.oo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

11/111995 w.A.T.E.R. =cumurat1ye Score/Maximum Possible Score o.oo 0.11 o o.46 0.256 Page 6 of6

FPL Everglades Mitigation Bank Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluation (MBSE) Matrix Page 1 of 1 Parameters Turkey Point Expansion - Wetland A and D Impacts (Sftello--bY: DonllOlon...,._)

............... ., ~ -- . - .. ..

, *..: ;: - . ~-* ... .. Rallnna 8c:o,9

1. Adjacent to landa or watera d regional Importance and results In klentiflable State Palk, OFW, AP, and Including !JUI no<< Nmlted to Special Water& on at least 1 bOundary 1 1 ecoloolcal benefits to adlacent lands or waters. ..,.,,,...,, lands contain no .,,..,.,al des"""'tlon oru.......,,,nated "'"'"bl value 0

2. Property 11 within bounda,y or an acknawledged tlate, local or reglonal acquisition prog,am Prope,ty 11 within boundary of an acqulsltton program 1 PMNMN 11 nol wffhln boundarv of an """UlslUon """'ram 0 0

i. Property con11Ins ~ or ueo,ou,cal ,eaklnla __,,y..,.,........, by ,_,11 Proj)ellyquatlftes 1 Sdenllal. or rederal and tate ....ndeii to be unusual, unkwA or rare 1n lie l'MIM- and la or aufficieflt size fl"""'"" <1081 no<< auallfv u 0

4. P<openy detlgnated as 1>e1n11 or Critical etate or NKJ nll concem and/or c:ontalna 1peaal C1e1lgnations, Proj)elly oonlalnl i least 1 special dealgnatlon. 1 1 F>ffllWlv contains no *"""ial deslonattons. 0 II. Property Important to acknowledged restoration affor1B Properly Is lmpottant. 1 1 Pnl"'""' 1s not lmnNfAnl 0

• • C>Nnel'llhlp and control _or the prope,ty. Property Is privately ownad. 1 1 Property Is publldy a.vned. 0

7. Threatened , Endangered & Species or Special Concern Doc\lmented Presence of Species on site 1 1 P/Mence d enmal . -1raunatl found on Ille No documented Presence of ...-.!as on site. 0 0

a. Threatened , Endangered & Listed Species Documented Presence of Species on site 1 Presence al olant.!lftAdes lftorall follnd on site No documented Presence of s,_,,es on site. 0 0

-- ,-. - w

--* -* -- - --- --- . *~* . -. ***-- ..

9. Threat of toes or deslructlon from dewtopment activities, (0.VelO/lment PfllUUfll) High probablllty of development. 1 1

10. Extent to whleh landS are subJec;t to Local, State, and Federal dllldge and filV ERP Regulations la.¥ pt~ty of de':!l?Pmenl ;....*

Property Is regulated.

Prooertv Is not ,,.,.,lated.

~

• • -- ' - ,:'I,; "lr";::::,* <<"'-"<'>l-:'**4..!.,-....,~l*-*'* '*'r.<';,~.,,y,.t*ll*.!,

0 1

0 1

Vatua Cumulative Score (CS) 7 The MIUgatlon Bank Sile Suitability EvaluaUon Matrix II designed to provide a quantJflable means of delarmlnlng the number Of mitigation credits that snould be assigned to a barflvtia1" related parametel8. Value related para_ metel8 are human values determined to be lmpol'lant to society: and then,(0111 ara not mea1U1111Jte In a purely functlOnal analylls. Functional anaIy1Is will only measure the degree of functional ecological improvement (degree of ecOloglcal lmpro1111ment) reeultlng from mitlgaUon activtttes. The SS Evaluation measures and pro\'ldes credit for sodelal valuea that eeparate one mltlgatiOn benk from another as required by en.62-342 .470 (a)(b) (e) (f) (0) (h) (I) FA.C .. The SS evaIuatton Is not to be utltized In conjunction with a functl )11,al anatysls methodOlogy which alto utilizes value related pa,ameters In Its analysis.

Evaluation Scale SJte Suttablty Maximum Possible Score MPS 10 SultablDtv MuNJPller Cumulative Score CS

[TIJ---11.1°1 0.7 OJ 11.091 EPA, USACOE, USF & W, FDEP, NMFS, SPWMD, Dade DERM, FPL, CH 3-Apr-96 After Celculatlng the Site sultabllity Score determine the Site Sultablllty Multiplier by utilizing the 1.06 Eveluetion Scete to the left The Site Sulteblllty Multiplier Is to be multiplied times the number of the DJ---11.oal Functional Mitigation Credits, resulting from the r,I.A. T.E.R.) Functional Assessment of the Mitigation DJ 11,041 Bank, to determine the number of Site Suitability Credits to be assigned to the Mitigation Bank.

m 11.031

[I] 11.021 OJ @

m m Prepared By:

Cotteur Hearing 4/7/2004

Mitigation Bank Wetland Functl.o n - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,200:s Enhancemen1 Mitigation:

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 41h Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from Wetlands D-north and D-mlddle EPA. FDEP,ACOE, NMFS, USF & w. SFWMD & Dade County (W.A.T.E.R.cruledby: BIRL. MIUI)

,.,......,,. ... ....... . .. " . .. .. .... .... - ..,~ - . . ..... ' *** ** ...

Polygon Polygon Polvaon Polygon Polygon Polygon WetlandD Wetlando Wetland D Wetland D Parirmtt$rl Function Scoi1rtg Cifterfa Ratings north

• West of

• North* West of Mlddle-West of Mlddle*Weat of Patrol Rd. Pre- Patrol Rd. Post* Patrol Rd. Pre* Patrol Rd. Post-

1. Rsh & Wlldllfe FuncUons Aoofv to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mltlastion svstems 7 or more ....,.,es commonlv observed 3

a. Waterfowl, wading birds, weUand dependent, or aquatic ~ IIMdes """""""'obS8Mld 2 3 3 3 3 blrds of prey. 1*2 s"""'es commonlv observed 1 Mil Bank - Him AMde count w/ tow noo, ,,s score 1 o MA<SA1 commonly obse!ved 0 7 or more,_ commonly obS8Mld 3 b.Flsh .. 3-6 *"""""' commonlv observed 2 3 3 3 3 (Mil. Bank - High specie count w/ tow pop. ,,s score 1 1-2 sOACIM commonly Obl8Mld 1 Restoration lhat causes 12% """'* lncreases-hiaher score> 0 snarles commonlv obServed 0 Too nmtt,,tor Ccamlvorel &/or larae mammals 3

c. Mammals Medium sized mammals , /adult weioht > 6 lbS.l 2 2 2 2 2 (MIi. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Small animals CrodenlS, etc.I , /adult weiaht < 6 lbs.) 1 Restoration lhat causes 12% nnn, lncreases-hiaher score I 0 """"'es oresent 0 7 or more soecies commonlv obse<ved 3

d. Aquatic macrolnvertebrates, amphibians 3-6 soecles commonlv observed 2 3 3 3 3 (Mil. Bank

• High spocle count wl low pop. 11's acoro 1 1*2 soedes commonly observed 1 Restoration lhat causes 12% nnn. lncreases-hiaher ..

scorel 0 s,,..,.Jes commonlv Obsorved 0 Laroe S"""es observed 3

e. Aquatic reptiles Aauatlc lurtles 2 3 3 3 3 (Mil. Bank. High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Snakes & lizards 1

• Restoration that causes 12% ooo, Increases-higher score) No evidence of species oresent 0 Page 1 ofS

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Re'llews Dita Collected on: OCT. 22,200S Enhancement Mitigation:

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Pr1orlty Project List (PPL) with technical advise from Wetlands 0-north and D-mlddle EPA, FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO & Dade County

~*

(W.A.TU. <<alld by. 1111 L M-)

---* *- - -~* - * - ~-~*** .,, .., . . . . .........,~----.. , ........ ... ., ....,... .

~

Polvaon Polygon Polygon Polvaon Polygon Polygon WetlandD WetlanCID WetlandD WetlandD P*rameter/ifun.ctton scoring er1ter1a north - West of . North-West of Mlddle,West of Mlddle-West of Patrol Rd. Pre* Patrol Rd. Po1t- Patrol Rd. Pre, Patrol Rd. Poat*

2. Veaetatlve Functions Apply to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mltfgetion systems Desirable lreetlllhNb h8811hy & providing appropriate habllal (aeedllng1 3

present) & no lna"""""111t.e llll8dM Desirable lt8eS/stvuba exlllbil lllgns of &b'es& (no seedlings) few 2

a. Overst01y/shrub canopy inannmnnate .,_.,es Dl8Senl 2.5 3 2 .5 3 lnappropnate trees/Shrubs shading or overcoming desirable tree/shrub1 1 1very 11me or no ...,..,an,e * ...,... ruos present t8V1oence &1Jggesla tnere

,...,,c,*- * . ._..., ... ...... Sllouldbel 0 Aueument area e>chlbits <2% Inappropriate herbaceous ground cover 3

for .....,.;i;,. wetland svstems and Q(ctJndcover I& present

,,..sesomenl area contains *~.,. cu, __,.,. 1nappropna1e nerbaceous

b. VegelaUve ground cover groundCover, o, tac:k ol groundeover >2% but < 30% 2 2.5 3 2.5 3 Assessment area contains >30% 10 <70% lnapproprlale herbaceous 1

laooundcovet, o, lac:I< ol ground cover >30% 10 <70%

Assessment area >70% Inappropriate herbaceous groundcover or lack of groundcover >70%

0 Penphylon (Blue-green algae> present wilh average mal lhlcl<ness >1 1/ In. (measure acllve & dead layer) 3 Penphyton (Blu&-green algae) present with average ma1 thickness

c. Penphyton mat coverage between 31 In. lo 1 1/4 in. (active & dead !aver) 2 1.5 2 1 2 Penphyton (Blue-green algae) present wilh average mat thickness between 1/4 In. 10 314 In. (active & dead layer) 1 Periphyton (Blue.green algae) not present or It pressenl wllh ave<age thickness ol 0.0 10 1/4 In. (active & dead raver) 0

< ror ~ 101 1 % exotic clan! cover 3

d. Category 1 and CategOIY 2 exoUc plants or (non-naUve) > 1 o/, lo 10 % exouc Plant cover 2 3 3 3 3 species > 10 % 10 65 % exotic olant cover 1

> 85 % axollc olant cover 0

>3 nallve species communlUes on site wilhln assesssment area 3

e. Habl1at diversity (vegetative) 2 or 3 native specJe communities on site wtthln assessment area 2 2 2 2 2 1 native species community wilh 75 *;. 10 90 % coverage within

/within assessment att1a I assessment area 1 1 native species convnunlty has > 90 % c011e<age wtlhln assessment area 0

> 3 alternative habitats available fincludino uolandl 3

f. Biological diversity within 3000 feet 2 IO 3 altemauve habitats 2 3 3 3 3

/app,oxtmately 112 milt from ..ii,. of aueument arts/ 1 altemauve habitat 1 Same habitat M>e, or lnannmnnate / lmcacled 0 Page 2of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function -- Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A. T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,200S Enhancement Mitigation:

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project Ust (PPL) with technical advise from Wetlands 0-north and D-mlddle EPA,FDEP,ACOE NMFS USF&W SFWMD& Dade County ...

(WATER crutedt,y. BlnL.M_,.)

• ~ - -- *--***--*-- ... -*** .--******** . ***~ .**~ -* ---**-** .

I Polvaon Polygon Polygon Polygon Po!ygon Polygon t wetland D weuandD WellandD wetlanaD l ,pa,ameterrFunct1on Scoring Criteria RatlllgS north

• West of North* West of Mlddle-West of Mlddle-West of l

l .. . Patrol Rd. Pre- Patrol Rd. Post* Patrol Rd. Pre* Patrol Rd, Post*

3. Hvdroloalc Functions Major connection (F/awlnfl walefl,,,,., or 1/oodplalnl uniform flow thtocJQ/1 natural IVStllflt) 3 Moderate connection ( N4hnl re1trtC!lon d llow or' Flowi"fl wotor,,.,. to . , ,-

2

a. Surface water hydrology / 111\eet flow hydrolcglt: """'neet1na) 1 1.5 1 1.5

!Applr to lre1l11wtor, nttwater, btacf</sh 1111d m#lgaaon 1ystem1 Minor connecUon (Runalf co/Itel/on point, or"""""" flow due to beml1.

1 dttl:her. tOadways ere.)

Hydrologlcally Isolated, no net lateral movement 0

> 8 months inundated with no*reversals & everv year drvdoWn 3

>5 months < 8 months or >6 years continuous Inundation (IOOk for 2

b. Hydropertod (nonnal year) fresh systems sirona waler stains on """'istent vegelatlonl

>1 month < 5 months, with possible reversals (fool< to, soft or less 1 distinct waler s1ains on oeBlstent vegetation)

< 4 weel<S cumulallva annual Inundation or< 2 weells continuous 0

inundation

>10 weeks of continuoos lnundallon including soil aaturation 3

> e weeks bul <10 weeks of continuous Inundation lndudlng SOIi 2

b-1 Alttm*t* tot,. for saturation 1

ShOrt Hydroperiod (nonnal year) fresh systems: >2 weeks but <e weeks or lnudalion, including soil sa1uralion 0

<2 weeks or contlnuos Inundation

. . . **** . *** ..... ,._ ...... ** ...*~ - ....... ,,....,...

Inundated bv >90% high tides 3 b-1 Alt8rn11e to t,, for Inundated bv *sorina* hlah tides lbl-mon1hlvl 2 2.5 3 2 3 Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems lnunda1ed bv *extreme hlah" tides only (blannuallvl 1 Inundated bv Slonn sumes onlv 0 Inundated by high *sprtng* Udes (monthly) and nushed by fresh water 3 sheetftow every 10 days average Inundated by high *sprtng* tides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water 2

b-3 Attem*i. to t,. for sheetftow everv 30 davs on lhe average High Marsh (Juncus,DlsUchlls) Inundated by high *sottna* tides Cmonthlvland exposed to rain only 1 Inundated bv >50% hlah lldes and exposed lo rain onlv 0 Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves and maintains fresn 3

water at least Into first half of drv season rmunaalea oy n1gn 1,aes (dally/ and/or rec,eves and maintains iresn M Alternate to t,, for water during rainy season onrv 2

Riverine sys1ems :1nunda1ea oy h,gn uaes 10-*11Y) ana,ot recteves rresh waler but does nol maintain (reversal) dunno ralnv season 1 Inundated by apring tides (bl-monlllly) and/or experiences frequenl reversals of fresh water <nasnvl 0

' ,, . -,~ . ....... * ** *** * ... .. * * **** --* . . - . ,v , , ... . .... ...... *--

Page 3 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R. -Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Colleeted on: OCT. 22,2003 Enhancement MIUgatlon:

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA FDEP ACOE NMFS USF __&,,W SFWMD & Dade County

-*.- ___ ,., -~--*~ --~ - .. . . ., - --* .. ....

. . awlled ~

• 8111 L Maus)

(WATER Polvaon Polvnon Wetlands D-north and D-mlddle

, Polvaon Polvaon Polvaon Polvaon i WetlandD wetlandD Wetland D WetlandD Parameterf'Funttl'o n Scoring: Crtt61'1a Ritlnga north

• West of North* West of Middle-West of Middle-West of 1.,

.. , . ... Patrol Rd. Pre* Pitrol Rd. Post* Patrol Rd. Pre- Patrol Rd. Post*

• • ---*-* ** . - * '** . ----**** ***-** * ****** --*--***-**** ***----*--~- ****----*

3. Hvrlrol-Jc Functions continued

>1 ft. waler depth for al teasl 2.5 months and <6 In. for >1 month (measure waler marl</ lichen line), or waler depth Ideal for specific 3 welland"""lem

>6 In 10 1 ft. for al leasl 2.5 months (measure water marl</ lichen lfne) 2

e. Hydtopattem (fresh system) or water deDlh boroer1Ine c,,er or under for soecliic wetland svstern

<6 In. for at leaot 2.6 months (measure water marl</ lichen line) or wate 1

... d&t>th Incorrect for *"""'flc weuand svstem

<8 In. In association with either canals, ditches, swales, culverts, pumps, and/or wellflelds, or these factors cause water depth to be 100 0 deeo for speclftc svstem.

>1 ft. waler deo1h <2 ft. on 90% h!Qh lides 3 e,1 Alternate to c. for > 6 In. water deoth <1 ft. on >50% hioh tides 2 2 2 2 2 Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems < 6 in. waler deoth , but > than saturated 1

....... ......... . . . -~-...........,.: "* .,. ***** _,, ._.,, . . .. -~--- .. ... ...... .. ' -- - . -*- *""'-"" - -. .

Saiurated bv saline water table onlv 0

- "'" -.*-- *- *.- - .. ,., ,,, . , . .... ,.., , . " n ,* *, ***

>10 In. waterdeolh <211. on regular basis during growing season 3 e-.2 Alt.,,,.le to e. for >5 In. to 10in. water depth on reautar basis durino orowina season 2 High Marsh (Juncus-OisUchlls) >1 In. IO 5 In. water depth on regular basis dunno growing season 1

>0.0 In. to 1 In. water deoth socradlcallv durina arowlna season 0

>2 ft. waler death {main channel> <6 ft. for 8 monlhs 3 e-3 An.rnare lo c. for >2 ft. water denth lmain channell <4 ft. tor 8 months 2 Riverine systems >1 ft. water death {main channel\ <2.6 ft. ror 4 monlhs 1

<1 tt. waterdeolh, but drv for >4 weeks Cdrv seasonl 0

.... , *-** . .. ~- . ........ **** ***** . ... ***- * -*- -----* ~-- -***** ** * .... -~ ~

--- .......... ... ******-* ...~- **** .... . .,_ ,... . - .. . .... . --***

Page4 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function -- Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A. T.E.R. - Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Enhancement MIUgaUon:

Based on WBI, WO!, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from Wetlands D*north and D-mlddle EPA FOEP ACOE NMFS USF&W SFWMO& Dade County (WATER' ' ' C!IIIMdby. l!ll~ Maus)

Polygon Polvaon Polvnon Polvaon Polvaon Polvaon Wetlando wetland D WetlandD WetlandD Parameter/ Function Scoring Criteria Ratings north

• West of North* West of Mlddle~West of Mlddl.West of

• -*- -~ ~- -- *- .. --* .,,. -~ *-~ .....

~, . ---*-- ;,..... ' *~*******-

Patrol Rd. Pre* Patrol Rd. Post* Patrol Rd. Pre- Patrol Rd. Post*

3, HvtlroJnafc Functions continued

NO II ou,cauuu or poor ,....r quatll)' llal:> tesung reqwed, all values wnnin 3

acceptable ran""

NO v1sua1 111c1,cators 01 poor water quality """"iv'"' (1 vaIue Just over or 2

d. Water Quality under acceolable ranoel 1.5 2 1 2 Visual Indicators of poor water quality questionable (2 values over or 1

under aecAl>lllble ranael Visual Indicators of poor water quality obse,ved or tab ve~fled (values 0

are out of acceotable ranoel Unaltered 3

e. Intactness of historic topography (soil disturbance) SllahUy altered soil disturbanc&, < 10% o! assessment area 2 3 3 3 3 Moderatelv altered soil disturbance, < 25% of assessment area 1 Extremely altered soil disturbance. may exceed SO% o! assessment area 0

.. *-- -- ... .. **- - --- --* .. -~ -- -*

Organic soil eIasslfled hydr1c soil >12 in. or any thickness over bedroelr/caprock will1 perched water table and eill1er condition covering 3

>90% of surface area Organic soil classified hydnc soil >6 in. but <12 in. and eoveiing >90%

2

f. Soils, organic (fresh systems) of surface area Organic soil classified hyanc soil > 1 in. but <6 in. and covering >50%

1 but <80% of surface area Organic soil classified non-hydric soil <1 in. for >50% of surface area 0 w'lffi dl$hl1Ct tnoffilf\Q .md =&.,on&

lnresent in nMater than 40% of hOrizon.

3 Sandy soil classified hydric soil with mottling and concretions present in 2

f-1 Alternate to f. for > 20% but < 40% of honzon.

Freshwater, sa/lwaret *ystems Sandy sol! classified hydric soil with light or SP3rse mottling and 1

concretions < 2 mm diameter or < 20% of horizon.

Sandy soil e*hiblts strong evidence of disturbance or mechanical manloulalions or is fill material.

0 Calcareous loam >12 In. and >90 % of surface area 3 Ml Alternate to I. for Calcareous loam >6 in. to <12 in. and >90% of surface area 2 3 3 3 3 F,esl!water, saltwatBr, orackis/1 /!ldi11} $Ysloms Calcareous loam >1 In. to <6 in. and covering >50% but <90% of 1

surface area Calcareous loam <1 In. tor >50% of surface area 0 I

Page 5of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Enhancement Mitigation:

~.

Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from Wetlands D-north and D-mlddle EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dada County (W.A.T.E.R. c:rNted by. BIM L Maa)

• • * .. , ,, * "1/,- d.,-, * ****--** *~ -~.-, ~- "*.,,, *" " . .-....~, ,.., ' *" . _., ... , .. . ......... ..... ----~ -* _,

Polygon Polygon I Polygon Polygon Polygon Polvaon wetland D weuana o wetlandD WetlandD I

P*ra.meterf Func;tlon $coring Criteria north

• West of North- West of Middle-West of Mlddle*West of Patrol Rd. Pre* Patrol Rd. Post* Patrol Rd. Pre* Patrol Rd. Post*

4. Salinity Parameters Apply to frrllhw1ter, uttwat.,, braek/sh, hyperulf11* 1tld mitigation ,ystem* - Choose 1

<2 parts per thOusand (pp!) 3

a. Optimum salinity for fresh systems during growing 210 3 parlS per thousand (ppt) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a nonnal year. 4 to 6 parlS per thousand (ppt) 1 Apply to lteshwaler sys/ems wflhin 6 mu.s of the coasl >5 parts per tllousand (ppt) 0 a-1. Alternate to a. 6 to 8 pans per thousand (ppt) 3 OpUmum salinity for brack!sh systems during growing 9 lo 13 parts per thousand (ppl) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a nonnal year. 14 to 16 parlS per thousand (ppl) 1 Apply IO bnoklsh (Ilda/) systems only > 16 parts per thousand (ppl) 0 a-2. Alternate to a. 17 to 111 parts per thousand (ppl) 3 Optimum salinity for saline systems during growing 20 to 22 parts per thouSand (ppt) 2 1 2 1 2 season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 23 to 25 parts per thousand (ppt) 1 Apply IO sallne marsh (Uds/J syslems only >26 parts per thousand (ppl) 0 a-3. Allernale lo 11. 26 lo 41 parts per thousand (ppt) 3 Optimum salinlly for hypersaline systems during growing 42 to 46 parts per thousand (ppt) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a nom,al year. 47 to 51 parts per thousand (ppt) 1 Apply to hypersal/M (Udall systems only >51 parts per thousand (ppl) 0 a-4 Alternate lo a. bottom (lower) third between 12 to 25 ppt 3 Optimum salinity for ri<elineltidal creek system during middle third between 6 to 11 ppt.

growing season based on mean high slainity lora nom,al upper (top) third belwaem Oto 4 ppt.

year. bottom (lower) third between 25 to 32 ppl 2 Apply lo rlvetfne systems only middle third between 6 to 24 ppt.

upper (top) third belweem Oto 5 ppt.

bottom (lower) third between 30 to 40 ppt 1 middle third between 8 to 29 ppt.

upper (top) third belweem o to 7 ppt.

bottom (lower) third between 35 to 50 ppt 0 middle third between 10 to 34 ppl.

upper (top) third between, Oto 9 ppt. l Cumula~ye Score 1sc1 __ ..,4a,a2;.;a

.5a.,-----*-6.a.s_ _ _ _ _4_1._0_ _ _ _ _ 4_8.""5_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

W.A.T.E.R. CtNted ~y: Bnl L. Mau, M@xjmym Possible Score IMPSl ___54 ...._o.;.o____""54.;..;_oo..__ _ _...;.54"'.o""o.....____....

54 ,oo.._______________

111111985 W,A TE R

• Cumulative Score/Maximum Possible Score 0.79 0.88 0.76 0.88 Page 6 of6

FPL Everglades Mitigation Bank Mitigation Bank Site Suitability Evaluatio.n (MBSE} Matrix Page 1 of1 r-,uc1me,wr1t (Sl e Suttallifly cneted by: Donaldson ~ ) Turkev Point Exoanslon - Wetland C Enhancement

"' . o. -* ............ - *~* c.> . * - - -- - *

-* - .. - '.d,_ .,__ * . ** ~ ....... , ..

'"  :~ - - .~ilci':.c*"""** RIii- a-. )

1. Adjacent to lands or waters or regional lmpoltance and results In ldenlfliable Slate Pan<, OFW, AP, and induding but not limited to Special Waters on at least 1 boundary 1 1 IIC<lloalcal benefits to adlacent lands or waters. AdlRoont lands contain no s"""'*I deslanatfon or undeslonated aoaclal value 0 .. ***-

2, Property Is within boundary of an acknowledged 1tale, local or regional acqulsllion program Property 18 wttllln bOundary of an acquisition program 1

""""'"" Is not within boundarv of an acaulsltlon n""'ram 0 0 S. Prope11y contalna ecological o, geological features conslstenUy conslden,d by regional Property qualifies 1 Scientist or federal and state aNINIAa to be unusual unlnue or rare In Ille .....ion and Is or suffldent size P"""'"" does not ouallfv u 1

4. Property designated as being of Critical state or federal concem and/or contains ll)edal dellgnaaons, Prope,ty conlalns at least 1 special designation. 1 Pro"""" contains no """"*I deslanatlons. 0 0

5. Prop811y Important to acknowledged restoration efforts Property IS lrnpo,lanl. 1

,. - n v IS not Imnn11ant 0 0

s. Ownership and control of the prop811y. Property Is p~vately Owned. 1 1 Pmoeny la publicly owned. 0

7. Tllreatened , Endangered & Species of Spedal Concem Documented Presence of Species on site 1 1 Pr8Mnce d animal a"""1AA lfaunall found on &lie No documented Presence of ,.,.,,.Jes on site. 0

a. Threatened , Endangered & Lleted Species OoctJmen1ed Presence of Species on site 1 Presence d olant ,,_,.,,, lftorall found on site No documented Presence of .,.,,,,es

- . - . on site. 0 0

- ~ ** -

9. Threat of loss or destruction from development aclllllties. (Development Prenure) High probability or development. 1 1

- .. . - 1 - ...........

L~probability ol clevetopmenl .. 0

10. Extent to which lands a111 subject to Local, Sla1e, and Federal dredge and fill/ ERP Regu18Uons Property la regulated. 1 1 Pro"""" Is not reaulated. 0 0 Value Cumulative Score (CS) 6 The Mnigatlon Bank Site Su liability Evalualion Matl1x la designed 10 provide a quantlllable means of creterrninlng lhe number of mitigation credits that should be assigned to a balflvilae" related parameters. Value related parameters are human values determined to be impQf1ant to society; and lh8rsforeare nol meallHallle In a purely 1une1IonaI analySlt. Func1Jonat anaivsI1 will only measure the degree ol functional ecological improvement (degree or ecologlcal Improvement) resulting from mitigation ac11Vittea. The SS Evaluation measures and provides cnidltfor ,odetal values tllatseparate one mitigation bank from another as required by Ch.62-342 .470 (a)(b) (e) (I) (g)(h) (I) F.A.C .. The SS evaluation Is not to be ullliZed in ccnjune1Ion with a lunC1I .,al analysis methodology which aleo utlllzes value related parameters In Ila analyliS.

Evah.iatfon Scale Stte Maximum Poaalble Score MPS 10 Sultabilltv Cumulative Score CS g cm----

m--- EPA, USACOE, USF & W, FDEP, NMFS, SFWMD, Dade DERM, FPL., CH m--- 3-Apr-96 After Calculating the Site Suitability Score detennine tha Site Suitability Multiplier by utlllzlng the Evaluation Scale to the left. The Site Sultablllty Multlpller Is to be multiplied times the number of the Functional Mitigation Credits, resulting from the (W.A.T.E.~.) Functional Assessment of the Mitigation Bank, to determine the number of Site Suitability Credits to be assigned to the Mitigation Bank.

OJ ---11.041 m 11.03, rn 11.02, QJ j1 .01j m m Prepared By:

Cotleur Hearlno 4/6/2004

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Dell Collected on: OCT. 22,200:S Wetland C Impacts and Enhancement Mitigation Based on WBI; WOI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA. FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO & Dade County

--* -** -*-** ~* - * ,. .(W.A.T.E.R. erttrled by. B111*-*L M1111)

~--~.,,*~. ,._. ,. .. . . ~ ~** - . ---* ~--, *- . , .... ,.., . ~--* .*

• ~ . ... j .J,J Polv11on WetlandC WetlandC Wetland C WetlandC Pa.-..-btrt Fonttton $coting Crttedil Ritfngs Runoff Po11d Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond

'Eaat' Pre- 'East* Post 'West' Pre* 'West' *Post 1, Rah & WIidiife Function* ADolv to freshwater, saltwater, brackish and mltlaaUon svstems 7 or more &oades commonly Ob8efVed 3

a. Waterfowl, wading birds, wettand dependent, or aquaUc 3-4 *"""""' commonlv observed 2 3 3 3 3 birds of prey. 1-2 S"""tes commonlv obaeNed 1 MIi, Bank

• Hlah soede count wl low nnn. #'a score 1 o ,.....,es commonlv observed 0 7 or more soecles commonlv observed 3

b. Flsh 3-6 srw,ies commonly observed 2 2 2 1.5 2 (Mil. Bank. High spade count wl low pop. #'s score 1 1-2 """"i8S commonlY obServed 1 Restoration that causes 12% Mn. lncreases-hianer score) o snA<Ses commonly obServed 0 Too oredator lcamlveral &/or laroe mammals 3

c. Mammals Medium sized mammals , /adult weloht > 6 lbs.l 2 2 2 2 2 (Mlt Bank

• High specie count w/ low pop. #'s *core 1 small animals lrOdenls, etc.I, tadull weiaht < 6 lbs.l 1 Restoration that causes 12% Doc. lncreases--hioher scorel Osoecles 01esent 0 7 or mo,e &Decles commonlv observed . 3

d. Aquatic macrolnYertebrates, amphibians 3-6 *"""ies commonly observed 2 3 3 3 3 (MIi. Bank

• High specie count wl low pop, #'s score 1 1-2 sDeclea commonlv observed 1 Restoration that causes 12o/o ooo, lncreases--hlaher score) Osoeeles commonlv observed 0 Large soactes observed 3

e. Aquauc reptiles AauaUc turtles 2 3 3 3 3 (Mil. Bank

• High specie count wl low pop. #'s score 1 Snakes & lizards 1 Restoration that causes 12% DOD. Increases-higher scorel No evidence of soecies oresent 0 Page 1 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring c:,onductad by: BIii L Mau & Kart Bullodt W.AT.E.R.

• Wetland AuH1ment Technique for Environmental Review* D.lta COlleclN on: OCT. 22,JOOJ Wetland C Impacts and l!nhencemenl Mitigation Based on WBI, WQI, WAN', HGM and 40l Priority Project U.t (PPL) with technical IICMse from EPA. FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO l Otdt ~ (WAT.I.Jt. ,,.._,11,y.

• L .._)

-. 11 ".*-::. 11 Polygon Wetland C WtdandC WellandC Wtllaiwf C Pilral'Mier/ fft.1nctton Scoring Criteria Ratlnat .*

Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond

'Eaat'Pr** 'l!&IC-POlt 'Wnt'Pr.. w..r. Pott Z. v-,.uw Futw:tJom ADDN lo frnho,r;eter, /Utlfwat,r, brackJlh 1111d mlliaatJon rnlflma Ounblt~neew,,*~~.. Pwila(..-igi 3

~ll&no -

Onlrallle nllllhNIMelltti 19110f-(no__,..,,.,.

• • ~ I M I I ) can0py

. . 2 I

2.5 l 2 u no-* __., __

--INMilllnallldlaOl-delllallletrM'IIWUIN VflY ... or IWMIII , _ su;gttta ....

• - . *- . __,.,._ ,_ *- llhouldbel 0

- *-*toand nadllbill_

-anc1

,_.,._CQl!_.,~~DIII - **

• ~

- 110taunl ground ca~DIii < ~ 3 3 I 2.5 ,t&&a..,.,...,.. ClQtllalnt ~10 <70'4fnl~Ntlla~ I -umen1-** ~ -~ ottu1-, otlldt damund<<tN>301' lo <7<>,t, Perllll\)'IOR (~een a'l;ae) preu,,i wllh ....,.ge m a t - . >I 114 Ir>. (mtlMA eca-. &dtld-OI _,. 0 3

c. Petfphyl:ln mat C<MtaQe

~(~en*IDM)P'tMlllwlfla...,..nw_,.u -31<1111.101 1/4111. /.otwlllllld_, 2 , , 1.5 , ~ ( ~ I I O M I P ' ~ " " " a.,..rnatlhlcl<nesa be1WM11 1101. to314 in. race.. &ONd - I Pe~~ (lll~llgae) IICl~Olf PMNftl"'"11~t ~ al 0.0 10 1101. !ect.. & dNd _ , 0 c(cr*IO) I"- ~ 3

d. CalilgOly I Ind C,llVC)ly 2 ..otic 1)1,ntl o< (/IOIMIIM) *1 11. IO 10 1' ...oec: nllllllco... 2 3 3 3 l 9j)9Clea .,o"' 10e&'4 e.Olic...,,.covet I

• 86"' ..*"-- 0

>3 n:alivt-~on11e..<<1Woa-1m1111aru 3 I, Hlbllat dl"'ralfy (vegtllllve) {..,,,,.,_.,.., 20l3 netYe a p t c l a ~ on ... wi!IM'l ...-arN I n,...,. ~eo,m'&Moly'Mll 75!4!09014~ Mf'in , -~OOfflflu>ly,...*90'4~ i-.n~- > 3alllmllive /lallllllt ~ - 2 0 3 ll 2 2 2 I <--*~ ,.2-- .,.al__, ,...,.,..... unlandl

f. lllcioglcal dlvlRlly ....-.. 3000 feet 2 10 3 allemaM llabllall 2 2 2 2 2

~ I _ , , . _ ...... or ................ , _ , 0 Page 2 of6 Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: Bill L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,200:, Welland C Impacts and Enhancement Mitigation Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA FDEP ACOE NMFS USF&W SFWMD& Dade County i'"'<~,-*. . . . ,. -"""' *** ..

,., ' ... .. .-.., ,...-...,.,-.~ - . " ........... . .. . -~(WAT.l!R. .autodby:. BIIIL.Maus) ' . '. l *J q Polygon I l Parame~r/ Function Scod"g.Crtttrla "Ratll)gS WellandC WellandC WellandC WellandC ~ Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond ~ .. 'EasrPre* 'East' Post West'Prt- West'*Post

3. Hvtlrolot1/t: Functions Major connection /Flowing W111MI rm,r or /loodp/1/111 un/fotm flow lhfOCJ!lh nttural s>Sftm,J 3 Modera le connection / NahJrlJ ,e&lrlction of flow or F/cfwlntJ waler due to 2

a. Surface waler hydrology I sheet flow h)'lil'O/OOICl>N>l,-rlng) 2 Apply to lteshw8'tr, ta'IWaler, btacklsh and m1tlgat/on systems Minor connection /Rll!o/f ecllacl/Orl po/II~ or"""""' flow dull to berms.

dttchfls. toMJwavs etc,) 1 ' 0.5 1.5 u Hydrologically Isolated, no net lateral movement 0 > 8 monllls Inundated with no reversals & ever, year dM!own 3 >& months < 8 months or >6 years con1inuous Inundation (look for 2

b. Hydroperlod (normal year) /rash syslems slrona water stains on Mr,:Jstent vegetaUon l

>1 month < 5 months, with l)06Slble reveraals (look lot soft or lass 1 distinct water slalns on .,.... istent veoetation l < 4 weekS cumulative annual Inundation or< 2 weekS continuous 0 inundation 3 >10 weeks of continuous Inundation including soil saturation > 6 weekS bul <10 week$ of continuous Inundation including soil 2 b-1 Alternai. to b. for saturation 1 Short Hydroperiod (normal year) fresh systems: >2 weekS but <6 weeks of inudation, includina soil saturation 0 <2 weeks of continuos inundation .. , .... - " ' *"* ~ *** .w,_.,, * *n" * ~ -,.., ,.",. , .-*. **.. ,~ *r-.,. *****~*-*** *._,. **,- ~ ... , . w~* **-'" *-, .--. .,.. .,..,w~ .~.--., ..... ~---- ..... ** *- .............. ... . ,... ..*. Inundated bv >90% hlah tides b-2 Alternate to b. for Inundated bv "sor1no* hlah tides Cbi-monthlvl 2 2.5 3 2 2.5 Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems Inundated bv *extreme hlah" tides onlv lbiannuallvl 1 Inundated bv storm su~ onlv 0 Inundated by high *spring* tides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water 3 sheettlow every 10 days averaoe Inundated by high *spnng* Hdes (monlhly) and flushed by fresh waler 2 l>-3 Alternate to b. for sheettlow ever; 30 davs on the averaae High Marsh (Juncus-OlsUchlls) Inundated bv high *spr1na" ucies Cmonthlvland exoosed to rain only 1 i Inundated bv >50% hloh tides and exoosed to rain only 0 Inundated by high tides (dally) and/Or recieves and maintains lresh 3 water at least Into first hatt of drv season nundated by high tides (dally) and/or rec,eves ana maintains iresh b-4 Altemai. to b. for water during ralnv season onlv 2 Riverine systems nu110a1ea oy high tides \Uilny) ana,or reCJeves 1resn water but aoes not maintain (reversal} dur1ng rainy season 1 Inundated by spring tides (bl-monthly) and/or experiences frequent 0 reversals of fresh water (flashy} Page 3 of6 Mitigation Bank Wetland Function -- Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A,T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Wetland C Impacts and Enhancement Mitigation Based on WBI,

.war, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project EPA FDEP ACOE NMFS USF & W SFWMD & Dade County List (PPL) with technical advise from (WAT E.R created by: BIi L. Ma,s) ..... ... ' -**-****- .... --~~-.. , ... ,.,. I Polygon WetlandC WedandC Wetland C WetlandC P~t*rl Function -$corfl'jg Ct.l.terla ~nes Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond ,. 'East' Pre- 'Ent'Post West'Pre- West'*Po1t

3. Hvtlro/oa/c Functions continued

>1 ft. water depth for at ,.,., 2.5 months and <6 In. IOt >1 month (measure waler mark/ lichen line), Of waler deplll Ideal lot specific 3 wetland svolem. >6 In lo 1 ft l0t at least 2.5 monlh9 (measure waler mark/ lichen line) 2

c. Hydropattem (fresh system.) or water deptt, bOtdertlne over or under for soecmc wettand svstem

<8 In. for at leasl 2.5 monlhs (measure waler marl</ Nchen line) or wate, 1 deoth Incorrect for """"'lie wetland SVll!am <6 In. In association wllh either canals, ditches, swates, cuM!rts, pumps, ancl'or wellfields, or these factcn eause waler depth lo be too 0 d""" for speclllc svstam. >1 ft. water deolh <2 ft. on 90% hiah tides 3 c*1 A/Mmate tot. tor > 8 In. water...,..,. <1 ft. on >50% hlah tides 2 2 2 2 2 Saltwa1er, brackish (1idal) sys1ems < 8 In. water denth , bul > lhan saluraled 1 0 -- ' ._., ...,.' ~*,* ****** ....,., ., .......... . ...; .. . ,, . ., SalUraled bv saline waler table onlv . . , * * ,.. ,*..,.>, ...... ,.. ...,,.... ----*~,-.,~ __ ,, *** .,~ ..... l.,..,,_._.,, * . .,_ , 1*-*-~ . . ,., .,h >10 In. water death <2 ft. on raautar basis during growing season 3 c-2 A/Mmate to c. to, >5 In. to 101n. water """lh on r""'""r basts dunna growtna season 2 High Marah (Juncus-Olstichlls) >1 In. 10 5 In. water dePlh on regular basis dur1nq growing season 1 >0.0 In. 10 1 In. waler "°""' """"'dlcallv dur1na arowlna season 0 >2 ft. water del'llh /main channel! <8 ft. IOt 8 months 3 c,3 Alternate to c, for >2 ft. water """'h /main channell <-4 ft . ror 6 months 2 Riverine systems >1 ft. water donlh Cmaln channel! <2.5 fl l0t 4 months 1 <1 ft. waler deoth but drv IOJ >4 weeks t,w seasonl 0 Page4 of6 Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A. T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Wetland C Impacts and Enhancement MltlgaUon Based on WBI, WQI, WRN', HGM and 4th Prtorlly Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA, FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO & OaCle County f'/1.A T~ crulecl by. Bin L Maus)

':-,t.<l*/~} \.*; 1 Polygon WetlandC WetlandC WeUand C WeUandC

• P:**ltiitd.i'tFuoctton S<;Qdj;'g*i(;:nteHil  :~11.

Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond 'East' Pre, 'East' Pott WNt'Pre- Wnt'*Pott

3. Hvdroloalc Functions continued No '""""'""n OI poor water qua111y ,,.., tetung requ,reo, an vaiues wnrun accaolable ranael 3 NO v,auaIInu...tora 01 poorwaltt qua..., 1, va,ue 1us, over or 2*

d. Waler Quallly under acceotable ranoe> 2 2 2 2 vIsuaI in.......... or poor water qua111y ques""'""" \;t vaIues ove, ar 1

. unCler acceotable ranoel Vleual lndlcato,w ol poor waler quality obSIIMld ar lab Wl1fted (values are out o/ a""""lable ranaet 0 Unallered 3

e. Intactness ol hlstor1c topography (soil disturbance) SUahtlv allered SOIi dlalurt>ance. < 10% ol assessment area 2 3 2 3 3 Moderately allered soil dlalUrt>ance, < 25% of assessment area 1 Exlnlmely allenid SOIi disturbance, may exceed 50% ol assessment area 0 Qrgank: soil ctasslfied hydrtc soil >12 In. or any thlel<ness over bedroek/caprock with perched waler table and either condlUon coveling 3

>90% of surface area Organic soil classlflad hydfic son >6 in. bul <12 In. and covaling >90% 2 I. Solla, organic (fresh systems) or surface area Organic aoll claSslfied hyelric soil >1 in. b!JI <6 In. and covering >50% 1 bul <90% Of surface area Organic soil classified non-ltydrtc sOil <1 In. fer >50% ol surface area 0 Sandy soil classified hydric soil wtlh dlsUnct mottling and concrellons oresenl In orealer lhan 40% of horizon. 3 Sandy soil classified hydrtc soil wllll mo!Ulng and cono-eUons present In 2 f-1 Altern,te to f. for > 20% bUI < 40% of holizon. Freshwater, iaJtwater system, Sandy soil elaaslfled hydrtc soll with light or sparse monling and 1 cono-ellons < 2 mm diameter or< 20% of horizon. Sandy soil e,hibllS strong evidence ol disllJrbance or mechanical 0 manloulaUons or Is fill ma1er1a1. Calcareous loam >12 In. and >90 % ol surface area 3 f-2 A/1.ern,1.e to f. for Calcareous 10am >6 in. to <12 in. and >90% ol surface area 2 3 3 3 3 Freshwater, s1/1Wa/Or, .brackl*n /Uda/J systems Calcareous laam >1 in. lo <6 In. and coveling >eOOA. bul <90% of 1 surface area I Calcareous loam !50% ol surface area 0 Page 5of6 Mitigation Bank Wetland Function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Mau* & Karl Bullock W.A. T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Envlronmental Reviews Data COlltctad on: OCT. 22,2003 Wetland C Impacts and Enhancement Mitigation Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technlcal advise from EPA,FOEP,ACOE,NMFS,USF&W,SFWMO& Dade County (WAT.E.R c.-by. BIIILM. .I r-'*jl*i \ tUd Polygon Wetland C WetlndC WetlandC WetlandC PJl'lln'l.terlFuocttoii s~o:rtng':~riterta Rljlf9 Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond Runoff Pond

'East' Pre- 'East' Poat Weat'Pre- Weat'*Post

4. s.Jlnlty Parameters Apply to freshwater. nttwater. b11cklsh, hyr,er,al/ne and mlllQatfon ,y1tem1 - Choose 1

<2 parts per lllousand (ppt) 3

a. Optimum salinity for fresh systems during growing 2 to 3 parts per thousand (ppt) 2 season baled on mean high salinity for. a normal year. 4 10 S parts per lhOusand (ppt) 1

!AP,,iy fD 1res11...1ersysttms wftllln 6 m/les or the coast >5 parts per 1housand (ppt) 0 a-1. Altern,i.I0 I, . 6 to 8 pans per thousand (ppt) 3 Optimum sannity for brackish systems durtng growing o to 13 pans per thousand (ppt) 2 season baled on mean high salinity tor a normal year. 14 to 16 pans per 1housand (ppt) 1 !AP,,iytDbrocidsh {ttdll) ljlSIMntonty >16 pans per thousand (ppl) 0 a-2. Altsmle to a. 17 to 19partsperth0usand(ppt) 3 20 to 22 parts per lhouSand (ppl) 2 2 2 2 2 Optimum salinity tor saline systems during growing season based on mean high salinity ror a nonnal year. 23 to 25 parts per thousand (ppt) , !AP,,ly to sa/llJe marsh (lklal) sys,.ms only >25 parts per thousand (ppl) 0 a-3. Altsmat* to ** 26 to 41 pans per thousand (ppl) 3 Optimum salinity lor hype,sallne systems dunng growing 42 to 46 pans per thousand (ppl) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 47 lo 51 pans per thousand (ppt) 1 !Apply to hypetsallne (ddal) systems onty >51 partS per thousand (ppl) 0 a-4 Alternate to a. bonom (lower) third between 12 to 25 ppt 3 Optimum salinity for nvenne/tidal creek system dunno middle third between 5 lo 11 ppl. growing season based on mean high slalnlty fo, a normal upper (top) third betweem 0 10 4 ppt. year. bottom (lower) third between 25 to 32 ppt 2 Apply to riverine systems only middle lhlrd between 6 to 24 ppt. upper (!OP) third betweem 0 10 5 ppl bottom (lower) third between 30 10 40 ppl , middle third between 810 29 ppt. upper (top) llllrd betweem o io 7 ppl. bOflom (lower) third between 35 to 50 ppl 0 middle third between 10 to 34 pp!. I upper (top) third betweem Oto 9 ppt. Cumulallve Score (SCl _ _...,4,..,2..,,.o.,,._._ _ _ _4,.,.3.,,.0,...._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....,,.38,...,,5_ _ _ _....,,.4_2.,..,0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ W.A.t.E.R. ctMled by: BUI L.. M1u1 Maximum Possible score fMPS > 54.oo 54.oo 54.oo 54.oo 11/111985 W.A I E,B a QumyJatiye scgreJMaxjmum posalble Score o.78 o.80 0.11 o.78 Page 6 of6 Mitigation Bank Wetland Function -- Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L, Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland D Restoration Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 411'1 Priority Project List (PPL) wllh technical advise from EPA FOEP ACOE NMFS USF & W SFWMD & Dade County

.~. ... --- .. (WATER . .. cnalld t,y. Bil L Maus)

-' '1 ) j;'\\

• II Poll'aon Polvaon WetlandD Iwetlana DWest WetlandO Wetlan-dD Pii'amete'r/:Functton. $c~ti,tsfGrJttlfa

• llatlilas West of Patrol of Patrol Rd.

• East of Patrol East of Patrol

~* -* . ****-* * -* - - -'* * * - d * * ** ,. , . ;....~*- . . ....... ~* "'""-""' Rd.- lmpact Restored Rd.*lmpact Rd.- Restored

1. Fish & WIidiife FuncUans Aop/v to freshwater, saltwater, brackish BIid mlUaaUon svstems 7 or more .....ies commonlv obSeM!d 3 1 . Waterfowl, wading birds, weHand dependent, or aquatic 3-8 ._..., commonlv observed 2 0 2.5 0 2.5 birds of prey. 1*2 ....,.es commonly observed 1 Mil Bank. Hloh ._..e eount wl low Mn. #'s score 1 0 .,,.,..es commonlv observed 0

,.,.,.es eonwnonlv observed

b. Flah . 7 or more 3-8 s........es eonvnonlv observed 3

2 0 2 0 2 (Mil. Bank

• High specie count wl low pop. #'s score , I *2 ,,_.es commonlv observed 1 Rettoradon that causes 12% non. lncreases-hloher score\ o ..,..,..as commonlv obseMKI 0 Too oredatot tcamlvorel &/or lame mammals 3

c. Mammala Medium sized mammals . /adult weiaht > 6 lbs. I 2 0 2 0 2 (Mil. Bank

• High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Small animals frodents etc.\ , /adult weiaht < 6 lbs.l 1 Restoration that causes 12% MA. lncreases-hlnher score1 0 snocies on,sent 0 7 or more .,,....es commonly observed 3

d. Aquatic macrolnvertebrates. amphibians 3-6 *"""'es commonlv obsenied 2 0 2 .5 0 2.5 (Mlt. Bank - High specie count wl low pap. #'s score 1 1-2 s=les commonly observed 1 Restoration that causes 12% non. lncreasea-hiaher score\ 0 *"""'es commonlv observed 0 Laroe s....,.;es observed 3

e. Aquatic reptiles Aouatlc turtles 2 0 2 0 2 (Mil. Bank - High specie count wl low pop. Ifs score I Snakes & lizards 1 Restoration that causes 12% nor,. lncreases*hiaher score\ No evidence of snectes oresenl 0 Page 1 of6

Mitigation Bank Wetland Function** Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A. T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environ mental Reviews Dall Cohecttd on: OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland D Restoration

~- Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA FDEP ACOE NMFS USF & W SFWMD & Dade County (WATER . ' . created t,y: Bill L M.,_J r,,1* lr;~.'11 Pol* *oon Polvaon 'l wetlandO wet1ana D Wast WetlandD WetlandD l Pal'llmtter/ Function Scortng,:¢rlt*tta Rall **

• j West of Patrol of Patrol Rd.

• East of Patrol East of Patrol Rd.-lmpact Restored Rd.-lmpact Rd,* Rastored

2. Veaet1Uve Functions Aoo/v to freshwater, saltwater. brackish snd mitigation svstems De&~able ttee&lshrub heallhy & p10vldlng app,opn11e habitat (&eedllnge 3

presenll & no lnaDDro"'1llle species Desirable trees/shrubs e,mlbll signs of stress (no seedlings) fr,w 2

• Ove111torylshrub canopy lna-~""*te *"""""' present 0 2 0 2 lnannMNfate t1ees/1hrubs &hadlna or oven:omlna desirable tree/shrub! 1 very little or no .,.,.,_ 1reetsnruos presen1 (elllOence suggeslS !here

. should bal 0 "'""' ,_., ...~~

• • • • - Assessment area eXhlbltl ..-~,. Inappropriate herbaceous ground cove, for soaclflc weuand svstems and l!MUndcove, ts l)fe&ent 3

.... essment area con1a1ns >l'l4o DUI <...,.,. ""'l'l'fuprn,te ""'"""eoua

b. Vegetative ground cover loroundcover, or lack of aroundcover >2% but < 30% 2 0 0 2 2 Asaeaament area contains >30% to <70% Inappropriate herbaceous 1

groundcover, or lack of around cove, >30% 10 <70'Ai AIS811ment area >70% Inappropriate herbacaoua groundcover or lack 0 or aroundcover >70% Periphyton (Blue.green algae) present with average mal thickness >1 1/4 In. !measure acllve & dead 1averJ 3 Petipt,yton (8tue.green algae) present wilh average mat lhlckness

c. Penphyton mat cwerage balWaen 3/4 In. 10 1 1/4 In. (active & dead laver) 2 0 0.5 0 0.5 Periphyton (Blue-green algae) presenl with average mal lhlcknesa belWaen 1/4 In. 10 3/4 In. (active & dead taverl 1 Periphyton (Blue-green algae) not presen1 or II pressent with average lhlekness of 0.0 10 1/4 In, lactlve & dead tayerJ 0

< tor

• 101 1 % exotic Diani cover 3

d. Category 1 and Category 2 exoUc plants or (non-native) >1 % 10 10 % exotic Diani cover 2 0 3 0 3 species >10 'lo 10 65 % exolle atanl cover 1

> 65 % exollc Diani cover 0 >3 native scecles communities on site wllhin assesssment area 3

• Habitat diversity (vegetatlveJ 2 or 3 native eaecla communities on site wilhln assessment area 2 0 2 0 2 1 native species community wllh 76 % IC 90 'lo coverage wilhin

( within assessment area / assessment area 1 1 native species communily has> 90 % cowrage wllhln assessmenl area 0 > 3 allematlve habltals available lincludina uc land\ 3 I. Blologlcal diversity within 3000 feel 210 3 allematlve habltalS 2 0 3 0 3 (approximately 112 mile /fom edge ol asseu17161lt area/ 1 altematlve habitat 1 Same habitat"'~ or lnaa-anale / imoacted 0 Page 2 of6 Mitigation Bank Wetland*function - Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A. T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland D Restoration Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA. FOEP ACOE NMFS USF & W SFWMO & Dade County ...

(W.A TE R - b y . BIii L MausJ " '-<'.'<l<lr. ... , ~,................... . ,.,;,- ..... "~""" .,J,. . .-,., *** ~ - . , - , , ........ ,,..... . . . " ,. l,,,.,.,:,.,v*.* r :-i::,..:,i on Pohgon Polvaon r .\ , WeUandD 1wetland o west WetlandD WetlandD ~ Pa'niltt!Jttirl'F.un~bn Scorii\SJ ~.i1tarta (Ra~; West of Patrol of Patrol Rd,

• East of Patrol Rd.-lmpaet Restored Rd.*lmpaet East of Patrol Rd.* Restored

3. Hvdro/nnfc Functions MajOr connectlon (Ffowlng waler/ over or 6oodplaJn/ uniform llow through nelJHIII SVS!lml} 3 Moderate connection ( Naflnl 191f11clion of Wow or Flowing water due to

• • Surface water hydrology / sheet flow hyd/OIOolC ,~,_rlno/ . 2 0 1.5 0 1.6 liw,/y to freshwater. saltwater, blacldsh .,,,J m/Ugal/On s,-stems Minor connection (Runoff col- point, or """"'n - due to berms, 1 dilches, fOlldWaYS etc.J Hydrotoglcally ISOiated, no net lateral movement 0 3

> 8 months Inundated with no reversals & everv year drvdown >6 months < 8 months or >6 year, conUnuous Inundation (look for 2

b. Hydroperiod (nonnal year) fresh systems strong water sialns on ""'"'Stent VAOBtaUon)

>I month < 6 months, with possible reversals (look for soft or less 1 dlsUnct water slalns on """"Stent veaetatlon) < 4 weeks cumulative annual Inundation or< 2 weeks continuous 0 Inundation 3 >1 Oweeks of continuous Inundation includlna sell saturation > 6 weeks bul <10 weeks of conflnuous inundation induding soil 2 b-1 Alternatw to b. for saturauon 1 Short Hydroperiod (nonnal year) fresh systems: >2 weeks but <6 weeks of inudation, inciudina soil saturation , - * . ,.... .. .. . - * * -~~*- * '-** -- ~- L ,S' * '. n,,~.- ,.,_,~ <2 weeks of contlnuos Inundation 0 "'" :i~ Inundated bv >00% hiah tides b-Z Alternate to b. for Inundated bv *senna* hlah tides lbi-monlhlvl 2 0 3 0 3 Saltwater, bractdsll (tidal) systems Inundated bv *extreme hloh" tides only (biannually) 1 lnundaled bv stonn suraes onlv 0 Inundated by high *sprtng* tides (monlhly) and flushed by fresh.water 3 sheelflow eVAN 10 days average Inundated by high 'spring" tides (monthly) and Oushed by fresh water 2 b-3 Allernatw to b. for sheetnow eveni 30 davs on the averaae High Marsh (Juncus-Dlsdehlis) Inundated bv high 'soring* Udes (monthly)and exposed to rain only 1 Inundated bv >50% hiah tides and exoosed to rain only 0 Inundated by high tides (daily) and/o, recieves and maintains fresh waler at leasl into first half of drv season 3 unundated by high tides (dally) and/or recteves and maintains tresh M Alttmate to b. for water during ralnv season only 2 Riverine systems nundated by high tides (daily) and/or rec1eves fresh water but does not maintain rreven,alt durtna ralnv season 1 Inundated by sp,1ng lldes (bl-monthly} and/or experiences frequent 0 reversals of fresh water (flashv) .. .. - . . -** ~- ... ""'*-* -** . ' ..., .. .. ..., ... . . ~----- ~ Page 3of6 Mitigation Bank Wetland Function ** Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W.A.T.l;.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland D Rntoratlon Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from EPA. FOEP AC0E NMFS USF & W SFWMD & Dade County ....

(W.A TE R - by* 11111 L Maul) If ~ ... ........ . - -~. **- .. ,. *- *- * .... . ---~ -- .. . P,,,.. gon Polvaon Polvaon i ' Wetland D 1wetland DWest -w,tlancro- WetlandD t

P*FJri1emr

tFun~on Scoring Grltena fU!ll~ , West of Patrol of Patrol Rd.

• East of Patrol Eaat of Patrol I .. -* -* ,. .. ... ... ~-- ..... .

~ ....... ...... ~--- ,i Rd.-lmpact Restored Rd.-lmpact Rd.* Restored

3. Hwlrofn11lc Functions continued

>1 ft. water deplh for at least 2.5 monlhs and <6 In. for >1 month (measure waier martc/ lichen line), or water deplh Ideal for specific 3 wetland system. >6 In to 1 ft. for at least 2.5 months (measure water mark/ lichen line) 2

c. Hydropattem (freSh systam) or water denth borde~lne over or under for &peciftc welland avalern

<8 In. for at least 2.5 months (measure water mal1</ lichen line) or water ,. 1 deoth lnconect for .-weuand svslem <8 In. In associaHon with either canals, dltellet, swales, culve/lS, pumps, and/or welltlelds, or theae facton; cauae weter depth to be 100 0 deeD for &Mdftc svstem. >1 ft. water death <2 ft. on 90% hlah tides 3 c-1 A/female to c. tor > 6 In. watM dA<>th <1 ft. on >50% hlah tides 2 0 2 0 2 Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems < e In. water deoth but > thin saturated 1 , . ,*.,, .. ,w,,. ,... , Saturated bv saline water table onlv .~.1. ...... **' . . . ................ ... . ,~, ' *** -*~ ,,.. ..... ,,. .... ~--- . ...., , . , , . , ., ...., . ... .. ... _. 0 ... .., .... , ***-*** .... , ._, __ _ __ ~-- ~......-u,....,.... ~ -~----- **-. * . . ... .. ' * ** . *~ >10 In. water deDlh <2 ft. on reaular basis dunno arowina season 3 c,Z A/fem1te lo C, for >6 In. to 10In. watM deoth on regular basis dunno orowino season 2 High Marsh (Juncus-Olstiehlls) >1 in. to 5 in. water depth on reaular basis durina orowtna season 1 >0.0 In. to 1 In. water denth sooraalcallv dunno arowlna season 0 >2 ft. water ~-th *main channel\ <6 ft. for 8 months 3 C*J AHem*t* to C. tor >2 ft. water deoth I main Channell <4 ft. lor 6 months 2 Riverine systems >1 ft. water death !main channel\ <2.5 ft. for 4 months 1 <1 ft. water dAnth but drv for >4 weeks (drv season I 0 -** *- -- ... .. ~- -* *-- -** *** ....., -***** .. * **--* **-*-*** * .. *** - --- ... ... ,. ... Page4 of6 Mitigation Bank Wetland Function ** Evaluation Matrix Turkey Point Expansion Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus & Karl Bullock W,A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Data Collected on: OCT. 22,2003 Project Wetland D RHtoratlon Based on WBI, WQI, WRM'; HGM and 4th PrlorltyProjed List (PPL)Wlth technical advise from EPA, FOEP ACOE NMFS USF & W SFWMD & Dade County (W.A...

TE R c:rNled by: BUI L Maia) '... . -*** .. ¥-* .. .... ** - . . .. .. * ****- . .. p_..,,,.o,:rri Pol**oon Polygon Wetland D Wetland D Wot WetlandD WetlandD

P.f!lr.a.mttert,Functl~n *S'colir,.g,Orlterfa Rat1nos WHt of Patrol of Patrol Rd.

• East of Patrol East of Patrol

-- ---- . . ___ .,. ..... .~-- . .. , .. . . . . . -* .., . .., *" . . -- .. Rd.*lmpact RHtored Rd.*lmpact Rd.* R88tored

3. Hlltlrol,.,.,c Functions continued

,roo '""""""on or poor...,_ QUaftlY I""' te111ng requ..,.,, an vaIues Wluw, a,.,....,table*ranael 3 INo visuat lndlcatOB DI poorwacer quality Ol>Set'Ved (1 value 1ust owr or

d. Water Qualny under acceptable range) 2 0 2 0 2 IV1sua1,no,cat015 or poor water quaI,ty questiona01a (~ va1ues over or under acceptable range\ 1 Vlsual lndlcalOra of poor wacer qualfty obser\led or lab verified (values 0

are out of ""'°"' 2 ble ranae I Unaltered 3

e. Intactness of historic topography (soil dlstumance) SliohHv altered soil dlstumance. < 10% of assassmanl area 2 0 2 0 2 MOderatelv altered sou dlsturtiance, < 25% of assessment area 1 Extremely altered son dlstumance, may exceed 50% of assessment area 0 Organic son classified hydric SOIi >12 In. or any thiekness owr bedroci</caprock with parched water lable and eitllef condition covertng 3

>90% of surface area - Organic SOIi classified hydrtc soil >6 in. but <12 In. and covering >90% 2

f. Soils, organic (fresh systems) of sulface area Organic sol! c:tasslfled hydric soil >1 In. but <6 In. and covering >50%

1 but <90% of surface area Oll)ank: soil c:tassified non-hydric sOII <1 In. tor >liOo/, of surface area 0 Sandy son classified hydric son with distinct mottling and concretions lnresent In nreater than 40% of horizon. 3 Sandy soil classified hydric soil with mottling and concretions present in 2 f.1 Altemate to f. for > 20% but< 40% of nortzon. Froshwater, saltwater systems Sandy sou classified hydrtc sail with light or sparse mottling and 1 concre1ions < 2 mm diameter or < 20% of honzon. Sandy sail exlUblls strong evidence of dlStumance or mechanical manJoulaUons or ls fill material. 0 ca1careous 10am >12 In. and >00 % of surface area 3 f-2 Altemate to f. for Calcaraous loam >6 in. 10 <12 In. and >90% of surface area 2 0 2 0 2 Ft11shwatet, saltwater, bnlck/Sh {Udall S)'ltams Calcareous loam >1 In. to <6 In. and covering >50% but <90% of 1 surface area Calcareous loam <1 In. for >50% of surface area 0 Page 5 of6 APPENDIX B SCOUT LAGOON CREATION AND SEAGRASS RESTORATION PLAN FPL Turkey Point Expansion Project December 15, 2004 SCOUT LAGOON CREATION AND SEAGRASS RESTORATION DESIGN Objective and Benefits The objective of the Scout Lagoon creation and seagrass restoration is to restore the site to reasonably approximate conditions that mimic an open water lagoon that will support seagrasses and provide EFH (Essential Fish Habitat). To achieve the desired restored condition, changes in the water management practices of the site will be required. A primary restoration objective is to remove the*upland fill that currently exists on the site and return the area to a productive wetland open water system. Signed and sealed drawings of the Scout Lagoon Creation and Seagrass Restoration Design are attached to this document. hnplementation of changes to more closely mimic historic conditions will provide the benefits of greatly increase the biological productivity of the site and enhance regional . ecology. The Red Barn Peninsula has been used as a recreation area for approximately 40 years. The area supported a camping dormitory for the Girl Scouts and associated story telling gazebos dot the area. Numerous planted coconut palms provided a tropical setting. Prior to this dormitory use, the area historically provided a shallow sub-tropical tidal creek tributary and estuary located adjacent to a coastal ridge hammock area. Pennitting meetings designed to form a collaborative mitigation effort identified the importance of the restoration of the area to mimic historic conditions. Representatives of Everglades National Park (ENP), Biscayne National Park (BNP), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Miami.-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Florida Power and Light (FPL), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Cotleur & Hearing, Inc. (CH) participated in the design of the on site elements of the mitigation plan. The group combined first hand knowledge of the South Dade Wetlands with knowledge of the Turkey Point Expansion project and determined a unified direction for acquisition, preservation and restoration for these lands. The details of the mitigation plan for the Turkey Point Expansion Project are described in the Mitigation Plan dated December 30, 2004. The Scout Lagoon is a portion of that mitigation plan. Restoration Activities Three major activities must be completed to meet the requirements of the Scout Lagoon Creation and Seagrass* Restoration Plan: 1) removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation; 2) subsequent removal of earthen fill that is the result of past site disturbance, 3) hydro logic and seagrass restoration. . The hydro logic and seagrass restoration will consist ofnumerous components designed to make the Scout Lagoon site an integral component of the area ecosystem. Connection to the existing tidal creek system provides the opportunity for water exchange to and from the existing mangrove areas. The hydrologic components include: The use of the upland peninsula for the creation of Sc:9ut Lagoon; installation of two baffle weirs, construction of the new lagoon to accommodate colonization by seagrasses, and lastly transplanting seagrasses from the existing Gardner Lagoon to the newly established Scout Lagoon. Physical Feature Removal (Structures and buildings) Scout Lagoon restoration activities include the removal of the physical features that are the result of past site disturbances. These physical features include abandoned buildings constructed for the purpose of providing facilities for the Girl Scout Association. Exotic Vegetation The restoration effort for Scout Lagoon includes a program designed to eradicate exotic vegetation in the work area. Exotic Eradication Methodology Photographs will be taken at selective grid intersections to effectively document conditions before and after restoration efforts have commenced. To preserve and protect desirable native species and existing wetland systems, methods of eradication will vary depending upon specific site conditions, but may include the methods described below, where appropriate. Specific methods to be utilized will be deterinined,prior to* commencement of eradication activities within the assessment area. Foliar Application ~This application technique involves applying systemic herbicide to the foliage of targeted species. Herbicide is applied using pressurized backpack sprayers that apply chemical to the foliage of targeted species. The chemical most often used with for the foliar application technique is Rodeo by Monsanto. I Mechanical Removal~ This method of eradication will utilize a loader with a mounted rake or tracked vehicle with claw attachment to remove mature palm trees~ with theirroots, for proper disposal. Prior to commencement of mechanical eradication activities work areas will be inspected and native vegetation appropriately protected. Disposal of Debris Debris willbe removed from all areas where mechanical removal is utilized. If conditions allow, debris*will be burned in accordance with bum pennit guidelines.

• r Debris not burned, chipped or cut on site shall be hauled for proper disposal at approved refuse facilities.

• Restoration Plantings Part of the restoration objective is to restore vegetative associations and communities consistent with the area prior to the disruption of the area hi¥ the creation of the Red Barn Peninsula. The targetgoal ofthe year 1964 vegetative associations is ari achievable goal for the Scout Lagoon. Restoration areas that will require restoration plantings to ensure their trend toward native plant associations are the floor of the Scout Lagoon and the near shoreline of the Lagoon Restoration. All restoration planting will be monitored .for installation success, percent cover, and .exotic species recruitment (if any exotic recruitment is present, steps outline in 1.3 will be tak~},

Hydrologic Restoration/Improvements r Removal of Upland Fill Excavated limerock material from upland will be stockpiled in another upland area on the Turkey Point plant site; Organic ~uck, if of suitable quality, will be mixed with adjacent limerock substrate directly east oflagoon to achieve a suitable $Ubstrate for creation of an upland Sub-Tropical Planting Area. Upland area adjacent to the lagoon will be elevated t9 a minimum of 14 inches above mean high high tide (MHHT}and a maximum of36 inches above MHHT to support future creation or tlie upland Sub-Tropical Hamm:ock-Planting*Area Hydrology. The tidal connection system 011 the .north side of the. Scout Lagoon will deliver the water needed to function as a conveyance system, which in tum will serve to encourage the utilization of tqe lagoon by forage fish for wading birds. The concentration of forage.fish is often a stimulus for nesting among certain avian species. Create Scout Lagoon Tidal Connections . . . - Connections (tie into existing Tidal Creek) will be ~ated at the northwest and*. southwest ends of Scout Lagoon. Dimensions of the northwest tidal connec~ion will be a maximum of 25 feet long by 10 feet wide and approximately-6 feet deep

• Mean Low Low Water (MLLW).

at An energy reducer baffle weir will be installed the south end of the connection , (northern edge ofl~goon). As sediments stabilize, the baffle wei,r will be ~djusted to

• control water flow, as conditions warrant.

Red mangroves will be transplanted (greater than 1" dbh) at either side of connection to, allow prop roots to progress toward becoming a natural baffle. A southwest connection to Scout Lagoon will be created (tieing into existing wetlands). The maximum dimension will be 12 feet long by 10 feet wide and approximately -6 feet deep MLLW. An energy reducer baflle weir will be installed at east end of connection (western edge oflagoon). Red mangroves will be transplanted (greater than 1" dbh) at either side of the connection to allow roots to progress toward a natural baflle.* Creation of Scout Lagoon The work areas will be encircled with turbidity barriers as appropriate to ensure no impact on surrounding wetlands. Sediments will be excavated using clamshell crane or other appropriate mechanical method of removing fill from Scout Lagoon area. The int~or lagoon depth of approximately -6 to .;.5 feet graduated depth MLLW (Mean Low Low Water) approximately0.5 acres will be created.

• An exterior lagoon depth of approximately -4 to -1 *feet graduated depth MLW (Mean Low Water) will be created.

A mangrove perimeter of-0.5 feet to 0.0 feet graduated depth Mean High Water (MHW) will be created for the establishment of mangrove planter areas. Mangrove species planter area along north, east, and south perimeters will be created. (Area may require soil amendments to support mangrove growth.) Gardner Lagoon Abandonment and Preparation for Seagrass Transplant Gardner Lagoon is the existing lagoon located within the footprint of the Turkey Point Expansion project. The lagoon will be filled as part of the construction

• activities under a separate ACOE 404 permit. Gardner Lagoon is a sourceof seagrasses to be transplanted to the new Scout Lagoon.

Prior to beginning transplanting of seagrasses :from Gardner Lagoon, a combination of sonic equipment and physical seine netting will be used to drive fish and wildlife from the area. Following inspection to verify absence of fish and wildlife, a weighted floating turbidity barrier will be placed into the body of each -of the two

• tidal creeks to "seal off' the Lagoon and ensure no impact on surrounding wetlands.

Seagrass Transplanting Seagrasses shall be transplanted from Gardner lagoon to Scout Lagoon once the ACOE 404 Dredge and Fill Permit ifissued. The transplantation will occur in a manner to achieve success criteria identified in the Success Criteria section of this document. Seagrasses shall not be planted ifturbidity in Scout Lagoon is greater than 16 N.T.U. above existing lagoon turbidity(0-5 NTU). If any section ofthe lagoon meets this standard, that area may he isolated so transplanting. can' begin. Suitable substrate for transplant and growth of halodule wrightii and ruppia . maritime seagrass exists in Gardner lagoon. Sediment will be transferred from Gardner Lagoon to Scout Lagoon, as practicle. This may be accomplished by suction dredging a portion of the existing lagoon or by any other method to achieve success criteria.

• Transplant dense halodule wrightii macro plugs from Gardner lagoon to Scout lagoon in appropriate quantity/concentration to achieve success criteria. Macro plugs shall be kept wet after being harvested and transferred as soon as practical.

Seagrasses will be deposited evenly throughout Scout Lagoon, as feasible. Secure rhizomes as appropriate to ensure success criteria is met. Repeat-process to transplant ruppia maritime seagrass. Mark seagrass monitoring areas at a practical interval to monitor future progress of habitat. . Allow seagrasses and sediment to stabilize. Adjust Scout Lagoon weirs to minimize scouring but allow circulation of water. Remove baffle barriers as appropriate from the baffle structures incorporated into lagoon connection area at northwest and southwest. Baffles may be removed sequentially as the seagrasses progress toward percent bottom coverage. Stabilize disturbed areas surrounding Scout lagoon to prevent sediment runoff (e.g., placement oflimerock). Mangroves Plant red mangroves around perimeter of Scout Lagoon. If mangroves are less than 23 inches tall, plant one tree*every 5_square feet in two rows (260 mangroves). lfmangroves are greater than 23 inches tall, plant one tree every 5 feet ( 151 red mangroves). Mangroves would come from wetlands in impact area ~ first choice. If site conditions preclude this option, then mangroves may come from other sources. Preparation of As Built Drawings A land survey will be conducted of all Scout Lagoon features and subsurface contours including location of seagrass monitoring locations to allow* accurate baseline and future monitoring. Construction, as built, drawings with Professional Engineer signature and stamp will be prepared.

• Photo documentation of the procedure will be provided and included in the baseline report for submittal to the appropriate agencies.

• Success Criteria Plantlets and macroplugs must be present and show viability of approximately 5 % at 16 months from initial planting,, or equivalent to achievement of Braun-Blanquet scale score of0.5to 1.0 with individual ramets of Shoal grass and Widgeon grass present 16 months following initial planting (transfer). Achievement of a score of 1.3 on the Braun-Blanquet scale will represent final success criteria.

Documented presence of colony _expansion 3 years after initial planting. Documented presence of 80% of expected bottom coverage by 5th year from initial planting fulfills success of mitigation. Moderate classified percent density within range of 26% to 74% coverage of submerged *bottom as eval~ted using W.A.T.E.R. c_ompletes success criteria. .. Unsuccessful Colony Establishment: By year 3, investigate why plantings are unsuccessful; proposal of options for fixing (for example, in order of preference)

• Replant seagrasses in Scout Lagoon, or

• Correct elevation problems and replant, or

• Provide alternate mitigation (for example, plant seagrasses within other site areas such as Green Creek and West Fork), ot *

• Utilize additional credits from EMB.

Monitoring and Reporting Specific details of the monitoring, reporting and maintenance associated with the Scout Lagoon are included in the overall project Mitigation Plan dated December 30, 2004 (attachment E "Mitigation Success Criteria")

• Baseline time zero (confirmation of initial plantings)

• Quarterly monitoring for the first 2 years following baseline report and provide

. report

• Annual monitoring in years 3 through 5 with annual report Note: Monitoring shall consist.of the following plot evaluations (Plot sampling consists of john-boat surveillance utilizing view tubes and photography.)

• initial plot sampling

• between plot sampling (colony expansion)

• peripheral sampling ( percent lagoon coverage)

Maintenance Upon completion of restoration activities, routine maintenance will be initiated on an . annual basis for a total period of five years or until success criteria is achieved. Outing these routine maintenance inspections, all noxious plant species over five inches in height

• shall be manually removed. Any re-growth fro~ toots or stumps will have herbicide applied. Where possible, without excessive damage, maintenance debris or flotsam will be collected and property dispQsed. Increased flushing and elevated water levels resulting from the proposed hydrologic restoration effort will improve health of native vegetation and combined with maintenance efforts, will facilitate incorporation into the surrounding ecosystem. After the initial five-year exotic eradication maintenance, the vegetative system should be relatively self-sustaining; Reasonable Assurance This lagoon and seagrass restoration project can reasonably be expected to succeed based on incorporation of processes employed in the following success stories.

Seagrass Habitat Restoration, Lake Surprise, Florida Keys: James Derrenbacker Jr. and R.R. Lewis, III Abstract: Tirree methods of seagrass planting were evaluated in an area of Lake Surprise, Key Largo, Florida that had been impacted by water pipeline installation. The first method employed the use of 15 cm long steel staples to anchor 10-30 cm long runner sections of Halodule wrightii on 0.8m centers over a 1.35ha area. The second method utilized hand-broadcast Thalassia testudinum seedlings over a 0.44 ha for approximately 0.3 m center ~verage. The third method relies on sections ofT. testudinum rhizomes with attached short shoots transplanted over 0.19 ha on 0.3m centers. Total labor requirements were 370 man-hours/ha (mh/ha) for T. testudinum rhizomes with short shoots. Planting occurred in three types of areas. Halodule wrightii was planted in a moderately impacted (shell hash) area, a

• severely impacted (fine silt) area, and a severely impacted (rocky) area'. In addition a total of 16, 2 X 2m experimental plots planted with various species combinations were monitored in the three types of areas. After 7 months H. wrightii had 100%; 98% and 18%

coverage in the moderately, severely (fine silt) and severely (rocky) impacted experimental areas, respectively. Peanut Island Environmental Restoration: Julie Bishop and Kenneth Dugger Abstract:

• The project plans called for the removal of stockpiled dredg~ material :from submerged lands, thus creating a shallow lagoon that was be colonized by seagrasses. They restored mangrove wetlands and established a rock/cqral reef and restored adjacent uplands.

,Restoration ofEsserman Property: Jeff Marcus Abstract: The objective of the seagrass restoration plan at the Esserman property in Coconut Grove, was to address alleged dredging violations with the restoration of approximately 1,657 square feet ofseagrass habitat. The restoration effort was to back-fiU the dredged area to match the existing elevation of adjacent seagrass beds that required the placement of approxin,.ately 153 cubic yards of material. In order to stabilize the sediments in the areas adjacent to an existing channel, limerock boulders were placed along the entrance on two sides of the impacted area. The next phase of the proposed plan was to wait one year* to allow for natural recruitment of seagrasses within the impacted area At the end of the 12-month period, a status review was to be conducted. The goal was to achieve 60% coverage within a l O--foot fringe. Plantings were not required since the level of natural recruitment exceeded the l -year requirement and at two years following project initiation, approximately 80% coverage has occurred. Ho~eshoe Pit, West Sumerland Key Restoration: Susanne Travis Abstract: The Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) istestoring s.eagrass habitat within the Horseshoe Pot on West Summerland Key, at the southwestern end of the Bahia Honda in the Florida Keys. The restoration project serves as mitigation for 0;02 acres of seagrass impacts that occurred from placement of ripiap and slope regarding during the Harris Gap Bridge emergency hurricane repairs. The Horseshoe Pit was created during the construction of the Bahia Honda Bridge in the 1960s, and a remnant fill pad surrounds the pit except at the opening along the northern side which is adjacent to the existing navigable channel. The project proposes to preserve a 0.3 acres island adjacent to the channel on the western side and then scrape-down 0.4 acres to the south of the island. Turkey Point Expansion Scout Lagoon's & Tidal Creek Connection & * .NOV 1 8 2064 Tropical Hammock Planting Area DATE: 10-15-04 NOTTO SCALE North MANGROVES MANGROVES NORTH TIDAL CREEK CONNECTION MANGROVES Turkey Point Expansion NOY 18 2004 / F PL Scout Lagoon's North Tidal Creek Connection Plan View DATE: 10-07-04 NOTTO SCALE North MANGROVES EXISTING TIDAL CREEK ORTH TIDAL CREEK CONNECTION BUFFER WEIR SCOUT LAGOON NOV 18 200.4** Turkey Point Expansion Scout Lagoon"s North Tidal Creek Connection Cross Section DATE: 10-07-04 . F PL NOT*TO SCALE MANGROVES EXISTING TIDAL CREEK OUTH TIDAL CREEK CONNECTION BUFFER VVEIR SCOUT LAGOON 5 ft. 12.0ft ., -;*: ~/P,\~Bjl ,;;, * , ' ' ;.,, . *1 : Turkey Point Expansion Cotleur Scout Lagoon's South Tidal Creek Connection Cross Section DATE: 10-07-04 NOTTO SCALE !!~ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ MANGROVES \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ BAFFLE WEIR \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ SOUTH TIDAL CREEK CONNECTION \ \ \ \ \\,~'ouT \ \ \ \ \ \.LA; ON \ ~ '- ...... \ '- '-.... ...... '-.... ...... Turkey Point Expansion

• ... cotleur Scout Lagoon's South Tidal Creek Connection Plan View

~ ~ NOV 18 2004 DATE: 10-07-04 NOTTO SCALE . ==-..:=.. North APPENDIX C UMAM AND W.A.T.E.R. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SCORING FOR PRESERVATION OF MANGROVE-DOMINATED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE L-31E LEVEE UNIFORM WETLAND MITIGATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET - PART II Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. (See Sections62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Preservation of Mangrove-dominated Turkey Point Expansion oropertywest of L-31E Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation as Preservation Bill Maus 2-Apr-04 Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal(4) Not Present (0) The scoring of each Condition is less than indicator is based on what Condition is optimal and fuUy optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to would be suitable for the supports wetland/surface maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface type of wetland or surface water functions wetland/surface functions water functions water assessed waterfunctions

a. 7 8

b. 6 6

.500(7)(a) Location C* 7 8

d. 6 8

e. 7 8

f. 7 8 v.Jo pres or g. 7 8 current with 7

I I 8

a. 6 7

b. 6 7 C. 6 7

.500(7)(b )Water Environment d. 6 7 (n/a for uplands) e. 7 8

f. 7 8

g. 7 8

h. 4 6 v.Jo pres or i. 8 8 current with j. 7 8 6

I I 7 k. 4 8

i. 5 8

.500(7)(c)Community structure II. 6 7 Ill. 5 6 IV. 4 5

1. Vegetation and/or V. 5 6

2. Benthic Community VI. 6 7 VII. 4 6 v.Jo pres or Vlll. 5 6 current with IX. 5 6 X.

I 0 0 5 I 6 Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = 0.7 current FL = delta x acres = r w/o res with Adjusted mitigation delta = 18.2 0.6 0.7 1rmmgat1on For mitigation assessment areas Delta " [with-current) Time lag (I-factor) = RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk)= 12.13 Risk 'factor = 1.5 credits 0.10 times 260.36 acres= 26.0 UNIFORM WETLAND MITIGATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET-PART II Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. (See Sections62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C,) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Preservation of Mangrove-dominated Turkey Point Expansion prooertv east of L-31E Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation as Preservation Bill Maus 2-Apr-04 Scoring Guidance Ootimal (10} Moderate(7l Minimal (41 Not Present (0) The scoring of each Condition is less than indicator is based on what Condition is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to would be suitable for the supports wetland/surface maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface type of wetland or surface water functions wetland/surface functions water functions water assessed waterfunctions

a. 8 8

b. 6 6

.500(7)(a) Location C* 8 8

d. 9 9

e. 7 8

f. 8 8 wo pres or . g. 7 8 current with 8

I I 8

a. 8 9

b. 7 8 C* 7 8

.500(7)(b}Water Environment d. 5 7 (n/a for uplands} e. 8 8 f_ 8 9

g. 8 8

h. 8 8 Wo pres or i. 7 8 current with j. 7 8 7

I I 8 k. 6 7

i. 8 9

.500{7){c)Community structure II. 7 8 Ill. 7 7 IV. 5 7

1. Vegetation and/or V. 6 6

2. Benthic Community VI. 6 7 VII. 5 6 wo pres or VIII. 7 7 current with 1x.* 6 6 I

X. NIA NIA 6 I 7 Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preseivation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands. divide by 20) Preseivation adjustment factor = 0.9 FL= detta x acres = with Adjusted mitigation delta = 2.99 0.77 1r mmgation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = (with-current) Time lag {I-factor) = RFG = delta/{t-factor x risk)"' 1.99 Risk factor = 1.5 credits 0.07 times 47.46 acres= 3.32 W.A.T.E.R ... Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Scoring conducted by: BIil L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Data collected on March 22, 2004 Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP. HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL

• Turkey Pt. 260.4 acres EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD &. Dade County Polygon Mangrove Property

• West of L*31E With Preservation Preservation 3

a. Waterfowl, wading birds, weUano depenoent, or aquatic 2 2 2.5 birds of prey.

0 3

b. Fish 2 2 2 (Mil. Bank

• High specie count w1 tow pop. #'s score 1 Restoration that causes 12% o

• lncreases,hi her score 0 3

c. Mammals 2 3 (Mlt. Bank

• High specie count w/ tow pop. Ifs score 1 Restoration that causes 12% o . lncreases*hl her score 0 3

d. Aquatic macrolnvertebrates, amphibians 2 3 3 (MIi. Bank* High specie count w/ low pop. Ifs score 1 Restoration that causes 12% o . Increases-hi her score

• 0 3

e. Aquatic reptiles 2 (Mil. Bank - High specie couni wl low pop. #'s score 1 Restoration that causes 12% o , Increases-hi her score No evidence of s ecies resent 0 Page 1 of6

W.A.T.E.R. - Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Seorlng eondueted by: Bill L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Data collected on March 22, 2004 Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL - Turkey Pt. 260.4 acres EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFW~D & Dade Coun Polygon Polygon Polygon Mangrove Property West Mangrove Property

• of L-31 E - without West of L*31 E With Preservation Preservation

2. Vegetative Functions Apply to f;eshwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation systems Oes1;,;1blf; treeS/shrub healthy S proviS;ng appropriate habilal (ssecli":gS pre sen!} & no inappropriate spee1es Oes1rab!e !'eeslshrubs exhibit signs :i siress (no seedlings) few 2

a. Overstory/sl'.".Jb canopy inap~rop~ate species present 2 2.5 lnapprcp!iate treesJshrubS shacin-g 01' ove:-coming desirable lree/sh;""Jb ery 11t1 e o~ no desirable tree snrubs present (evidence suggests there should be)

• 0 Assessmcr:t area exhibits <2% lnappropriate herbaceous grow:d cover 3

for spec1f1c wc!tand sys1ems and !i:voundcover is present Assessrnen1 ~rea contalris >2%1 but< 0 e 1nappropnate tiurbace,Ls b, Vege!;ltive ground cover grour.dccver. or lack of qrounoco,,er >2"1-:i bul c 30% 2 2 2.5 Assess'.Tler"J~ area coniains >30% to c::70%1 ioa{:)Propriate herbace:1us grouMcovsr. or lack of ground ccve* >30% Ill <70% Assess:,e:'\t area >70% inappropna~e :-ie;bac.eous groundcover er *ack of rc1..rocover >70% 0 f'eriphytoo (Blue-green algae) present *.,;li,.,_ge mat thickness >1 1/4 in (rreasure ac!ive & dead layer; Penphy.cn :s:ue-grccn algae) prese:~1 w-iri ~rage mat thickness

c. Peliphytoo I"at coverage betv,een 3f4 10. to 1 V4 in. (active & deaa rayer) NIA NIA Pertphyton (Slue11reen algae) present w,lh average mat thickness be:Ween 114 in. to 314 in. (aclive & dead :ayer)

Peripcyton (Btae-green algae) not present or If pressent with averaga lhickress of 0.0 lo 114 ln. (active & dead layer) 0 3

d. Category 1 a,d Category 2 exolic planls or (non-nallve) 2 15 2.5 species

> 65 %: exoh:: !ant cover

>3 native soecies communmes on site wi!hin assesssrnent area 3 e, Habitat diversity (vegetali\le) 2 or 3 native spei;ie communilies on site wilhirl assessmenl area 2 2 2 1 native s~ecles community with 75 % to 90 % coverage wilhin assess~ent area 1 ~alive speclos community has ~ 90 °,'o coverage with1c1 assessment area 0 ~ 3 o lemat.ve habilals Jvallable 11nc!ud1n u land 3

f. Biological diversity within 3000 feet 2 2 2 (ilPIJfOltimately 112 m/le from edge or usenment 81118/

0 Page 2 of6 W.A.T.E.R. -Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Scoring conducted by: Bill L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Data collected on March 22. 2004 Based on WBI, WQ!, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL - Turkey Pt. 260.4 acres EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County Polygon Polygon Pol on Mangrove Property West Mangrove Property

• of L*31E

• without West ofL*31E With Preservation Preservation Major connection (Flowin(J waler/ fiver o, floodplain/ un/fo,m now lhtough 3

natural systems} Moderate connection ( Natural restriction of now or Flowing watet duo to

a. Sutface water hydrology I sheet flow hydrologic englneerillg)

Apply to fteshwatet, so/twater, lll'ack/sh and mll/gaUon sysrems Minor connection (Runoff ¢ollatllat1 painl, or uneven flow dua Jo berms. dltchss. roadways eicJ Hyorologlcally 1so1a1ed, no net lateral movement 3 >5 months < 8 months or >5 years conllnuous inundation (look for 2

b. Hydroperiod (normal year) fresh systems slron water s1ains on persistent vegetation)

>1 month < 5 months, with possible reversals (look for soft or less distinct water Stains on persistent vegetation) < 4 weeks cumulative annual lnundalion or< 2 weeks c:onlinuous 0 inundation 3 > 1Oweeks of conlinuous lnunctaUon includin soil saturation > 6 weeks bul <10 weeks of continuous inundallon including soil 2 b-1 Alternate to b. for saturation Short Hydroperiod {normal year) fresh systems: >2 weeks but <6 weeks of lnudalion. Including soil salurallon 0 b*2 Alternate to b. for 2 Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems 0 Inundated by high *spring" lldes (monthly) and nushed by fresh water 3 sheeffiow every 10 days average Inundated by high 'spring* tides (monthly) and Rushed by fresh water 2 b-3 Alternate to b. tor sheetflow every 30 days on the average High Marsh (Juncus-Distlchlls) Inundated by high "spring" lldes (monthly)and exposed lo rain onl Inundated by >50% high tides and exposed to rain only 0 Inundated by high tides (daily) and/or recieves and maintains fresh 3 water at least Into first half of d season Inundated by n,gh tides {daily) and/or recieves and maintams resh b** Alternate to b, for season only 2 Riverine systems es (dally) and/or recieves fresh water but does not maintain reversal) during rainy season Inundated by spring tides (bi~monthiy) and/or e~perfences frequent revers;ils of fresh water (flashy) 0 Page 3 of6 W.A.T.E.R. -Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Data collected on March 22, 2004 Based on WBI, WOI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL

• Turkey Pt. 260.4 acres EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, Sl'WMD & Dade County Pol 9011 Pol gon Pol on Mangrove Property West Mangrove Property*

of L-31 E

• without West of L-31E With Preservation Preservation

>1 ft. waler deplh for at least 2.5 monlhs and <6 In. for >1 month (measure waler mark/ lichen line), or water depth ideal for specific 3 wetland system. * >6 in to 1 fl. for at least 2.5 monlhs (measure water mark/ liehen line) 2

c. Hydropattem (fresh system) or water deplh borde~lne over or under for Specjlie wetlands tern

<6 In. for al least 2.5 months (measure waler man</ lichen line) or wale de th Incorrect for specific wetland system <5 In. in association v.ilh ellher eanals, di!Ches, swales. culvens, pumps, and/or wellfields, or these factora eause waler depth lo be too 0 deep for specific system. 3 C* 1 Alternate to c. for 2 Sallwater, brackish (tidal) systems 0 0 >10 In. water depth <2 ft. on regular basis dunng growing season 3 C*2 Alternate to c. for >5 in. to 101n. waler depth on regular basis during growing season High Marsh (Juncus-Dlstiehlis) 0 3 C*3 Alternate to c. for 2 Riverine systems 0 Page 4 of6 W.A.T.E.R. -Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Data collected on March 22, 2004 Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL. Turkey Pt. 260.4 acres EPA. FOEP, ACOE, NMFS. USF & W. SFWW.O & Dade Coun Pol gon Polygon. Pol on Mangrove Property West Mangrove Property* of L-31 E

• without West of L*31E With Preservation Preservation uon o .xior water qua,,ty ,,a tAs~ng require a va ues w, ,n 3 le rnnqe}

• ua 1nd1cators o poor water e;1.,;a:tty observed (1 value Iust ov.ar or tJ. Water Quality acCBptable range) 2 2 2 i~dicators of poor water qua11:y ques11ona e values over o*

acceptabie range)

-d(cators of poor water quailty observed or lab verified {valJes 0

are ou, of a:ceplable range) Una:tered

e. lntactn8$S o~ h1stor:c topography (soil d1sturta.1se) Slightly aJtered sol! disturbance,< , 0% of assessment area 2 2 2 Moderately altered soil d.isturbaf"1C, < 25%, ot a:ssessrnent area ex1remely aliered soil dislurbance, may exceed 50% of assess/T'en!

araa

• 0 Orgar.ic soil classified hy<jric soil :>a12 ir. or arly thickness ove:

bedrocl,J,-,...aprock with perched water !.abl~ and either condition cc'./e'."'--:g 3 >90% or su""acearea Orgar.i:; s::;;l i:::assihed hydric sun >6 m. b1.,; <12 in. and covering >SO% I. Soils, organ c {heso systems) of surface a '93 Orgar1c sol! ,Iasslf1ad hydric soi! > 1 in. bu'. <6 1n, and covering :,,_sQ 0/c-but <90% of su,iace area Organic soi1 ciassmea non-hydric soil <1 In for >50% of surface area 0 Sandy soil ciassiffed hydric son with distinct mottling and concre!io'"ls 3 resent in reater than 40% of horiz.cr. Sanoy Soil c!assifiad hydtic sOll wHh 'Tl0tt:ing and concretions prese'l: *n 2 f-1 Alternate to f. for > 20% bu~< 40% of horizon, FrrJshwater, salt,..,,;110r :;ysfems Sandy so:, classified hydric soil war: sparse motlling anc concret1cns < 2 mrn diameter or-< c' honzon, Sandy soii cx*itbits strong evidence 01 oistvfbancc or mechan1ca1 mani uJa:i:)r.s or l$ rm material. Calca;eous :oam > 12 In. and >90 % of s,.,rface area 3 f.2 Alternate to f. for Calcareous foam >6 in. to <12 In. and ;.9G%>- of surface area 2 3 3 Pt9shwatsr, sattwater, crackiSh (tidal) sys(ems calcareous 10am >1 in. to <6 in. and covering !>SQ% but <90% o~ surface area C.alcareoJs loam <1 In for >.501:1-/11 of surface area 0 Page 5 of6 W.A.T.E.R. - Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Data collected on March 22, 2004 Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL

• Turkey Pt. 260.4 acres EPA, FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO & Oade Coun Pol gon Polygon Pol Mangrove Property West Mangrove Property

• of L-31 E

• without West of L-31 E With Preservation Preservation

4. Salinity Parameters Apply to freShwater, saltwater, brackish. /lypersallne ancf mitigation systems.

<2 parts per thousand (ppt) 3

a. Optimum salinity for fresh systems dunrig growing 2 to 3 pans per thousand (pp!) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 4 to 5 parts per thousand (pp!)

ApPfy lo freshwat*r systems within 5 mll&s of the coast >5 parlS per thousand (pp\) 0 a-1. Alternate to a. olo 8 parts per thousand (ppt) Optimum salinity for brackish systems during growing 9 to 13 parts per thousand (ppt) 2 3 on mean high salinity for a normal year. 14 to 16 parts per thousand (ppt) lo bracldsh (Udal) systems only >16 parts per thousand (ppt) 0 a-2, Alternate to a. 17 lo 19 parts per thousand (ppt) 3 Optimum salinity for saline systems during growing 20 to 22 parts per thousand (ppt) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 23 to 25 parts per thousand (ppt) Apply to saline marsh (Vdal) sysl&ms only >25 parts per thousand (ppt) 0 a-3. Alternate ro a. 26 to 41 parts per thousand (ppl) Optimum salinity for hypersaline systems duMg growing 42 to 45 parts per thousand (ppl) 2 season based on mean high sa~nlty for a normal year. 47 lo 51 parts perthousand (ppl) Apply to hypersaHno (Ilda/) sysrems only >51 parts per thousand (ppt) 0 a-4 Alternare ro a. bottom (lower) third between 12 to 25 pp! 3 Optimum sa!tnity for riverineltidaf creek system. during middle third between 5 10 11 ppl. growing season based on mean high slainily for a normal upper (top) lhird betweem Oto 4 ppt. year. bottom (lower) third between 25 lo 32 ppt 2 Apply to riverine .tysrem.t onty middle third between 5 to 24 ppl. upper (top) third betweem Olo 5 ppt. bottom (lower) third between 30 to 40 ppl middle third between e to 29 ppt. upper (top) third betweem Oto 7 ppt. bottom (lower) lhird between 35 to 50 pp! 0 middle third between 10 to 34 ppt. upper (top) third betweem Oto 9 pp!. Cot/our Hearing, Inc. Cumulative Score /SC) _ _ _ _-='3_1':'.5:----------,,-34.,..,._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....,.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ W.A.T.E.R. treated by: BIii L. Maus Maximum Possible Score !MPS l _____s __1_.o_o___________,as...1....o...o________________________ 111111998 WAT.E.R. = Cumulative Score/Maximum Possible Score 0,62 0,67 Page 6 of 6 W.A.T.E.R. -Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Data collected on March 22,2004 Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project Llst.(PPL) with technical advise from FPL-Turkey Pt. Expansion 47.42 acres EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & w, SFWMD & Dade County Polygon Polygon Polygon Mangrove Property

• Mangrove Property

• East of L-31 E Without East of L-31E With Preservation Preservation 3

a. Watertowl, wading birds, wetland dependent. or aquatic 2 3 bird$ of prey.

0 3

b. Fish 2 2 2 (Mlt. Bank

• High specie count wl low pop. #'s score 1 Restoration that causes 12% o . tncreases*hi her score 3

c.Mammals 2 2 2 (Mil. Bank. High specie count wl low pop. #'s score 1 Restoration !hat causes 12% o . Increases-hi her score 0 3

d. Aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians 2 3 3 (MIi. Bank - High specie counl wl low pop. #'s score 1 Restoration that causes 12% o . Increases-hi her score 0 3

e. Aquatic reptiles 2 2 2 (Mit. Bank - High specie count w/ low pop. #'s score 1 Restoration that causes 12% o . Increases-hi her score No evidence of s ecies resent 0 Page 1 of6

W.A.T.E.R. -Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Oata collected on March 22, 2004 Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL-Turkey Pt. Expansion 47.42 acres EPA, FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County Polygon Polygon Polygon Mangrove Property* Man grove Property

• East of L-31E Without East of L-31E With Preservation Preservation 2, Vegetative Functions Apply to fresnwater, saltwater, brackish and mitigation syslems Desirable tree$/Shrub healthy & ;i-rovid1r,9 appropna(e habilal (see~llngs 3

present; & no lnappropnale spec:e-s Desi:abte t,eeslshrubs exhibit s'g s cf slress (no seedlings) few 0 2 a, Overatorytshrub canopy ir.apo;cpria!e species preseo! 2 2,5 Inappropriate trees/shrubs sha-din ot overcoming desirable t~ee/shl"'Jb \, ery 'itt:e o~ no desirable treetshrubs present (evidence sugges:s mere shou:d be; 0 Assessment area exl'\1bIts <2°/Q inappropriate herbaceOllS ground cover far specific wetrand system~ and groundcover IS proscnt Assessment area contains >2% but <30°/o rnappropnata he:-taceous

b. Vegetative ground cover g-roi.:nccover, or l,c1ck of ground:over >2*/o but< 30% 2 3

,t area con1ains >30% to <?01:11,, inappropriate hertaceot.;s , or lack or ground cover >30% to <70% ssessmenl area >70% inapprocca:e herbaceous groundcove: o, lac!< or grcu:-dcover >70% Periphy1on (Blue-green algae) present wllh average mat thickness >1 114 1ri. (me.a:s.ure active & dead layer) Penphy1on (Blue-Qrccn algae} present v,..ith average mat thicknHs~

c. Periphyton mat coverage between 314 in. to 1 1/4 In. (aci've & dead layer) 2 NIA NIA Peri~hylon {Blue..gre:en .aigae; present with average mat thicKness ber+ieen 114 In, to 314 In. (act:ve & dead la er)

Periphyton {Slue.green algae} not present or if pressent wHr: ave:aae th:ckness of 0.0 to 114 in. (active & cead layer) 0 3

d. Categor1 1 ace Category 2 e,otic plants or (non-native) 2 2 2,5 species

> 65 % exotic lant cover >3 natlve species commuomes on site wilhin assesssmern area 3

e. Habltat diversity (vegetative) 2 o,. 3 nalive specie communmes on s:1e within assessment area 2 1 nah-e s.Je-cies community with 75 % lo 90 % coveNiJge wHh*n

'/within ~ssessment area) asseEs:nent area ' 1 nalive species communi1y has > GO 3/4 covernge wilh1t ;;,ssessmBnl area

f. Biological diversity within 3000 feet 2 3 3

/afll)IOXimats/y 112 mlle ftrl!n fldge of nsessmfllll area/ 0 Page 2 of6 W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Scoring conducted by: Bill L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland 'Function Evaluation Matrix Data collected on March 22, 2004 Based on WBl, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL-Turkey Pt. Expansion 47.42 acres EPA, FOEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMO & Dade Coun Polygon Pol gon Pol gon Mangrove Property

• Mangrove Property

• East of L-31 E Without East of L-31E With Preservation Preservation uniform now through 3 e<:tion { Natural restrlcl/on of flow or Flowing waler due lo

a. Surface water hyarology I sheet flow c neeringJ 2 1.5 pply 10 freshwater, taftwater. brackish an</ mttlgattM systems Minor connecUon (Runoff co!IBCtion point. or uneve_n now due to berms, ditches. roatiways etc,)

Hydrologically isolaled, no net 1a1eraI movemenI 0 3 > 8 months Inundated with no reversals & every year drydown >5 montM < 8 months or >5 years continuous Inundation (look for

b. Hydroperiod (normal year) fresh systems stron waler stains on pen;lstenl ve etation)

>1 month < 5 months, with possible reversals (look for soft or less distinct waler s1ains on persistent ve elation) < 4 weeks cumu!aUve annual Inundation or < 2 weeks conttnuous 0 inundallon 3 >10 weeks of eonllnoaus inundation Including soil saturation > 6 weeks bul < 10 weeks of continuous inundation tnc!uding soil 2 b-1 Alternate to b. for saturalion Short Hydroperlod (normal year) fresh systems: >2 weel<S bul <6 weeks of inudalion, inctuding soil saturation 0 b-2 Alternate to b. for 2 2.5 2.5 Saltwater, brackish (tidal) systems 0 Inundated by high *spring* tides (monthly) and nushed by fresh water sheetflow eve 10 da average Inundated by high "spring* tides (monthly) and flushed by fresh water b*3 Alternate to b, for sheetffow every 30 days on the average High Marsh (Juncus-Distichlis) 0 lnundaled by high Odes (daily) anlJ/or recleves and maintains fresh water a11easI into r,rst half of dry season Jnun ate by ,gn Mes (dally} andlorrecieves and maintains fresh b-4 Alternace to b. for waler durin rainy season only 2 Riverine systems Inundate by high tides ( aily) and/or recieves resh water but does not maintain (reversal} during rainy season lnunda!ed by sprinQ tides (bi-monthly) and/or experiences frequenl 0 reversals ol fresh water (flashy) Page 3 of6 W.A.T.E.R. - Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Scoring conducted by: Bill L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Data collected on March 22, 2004 Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Pro;ect List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL-Turkey Pt. Expansion 47.42 acres EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County Polygon Polygon Polygon Mangrove Property* Mangrove Property

• East of L*31E Without East of L-31 E With Preservation Preservation

>1 ~ *,,,,atef' depth for al least 2,5 T,cr:ths and<$ In, for >1 m:ir:!r {rn~as~re water rnarW lichen iirel, or water depm ideal for speci'ic 3 wet'a:--c s,.stem. >6 in :o ~ ft. for at lea&t 2.5 months {:r.ea:sure water mark/ iichen :ir,e) 2

c. Hydropat.er (fresh Sy$tem) or water depth bordertine over or under ror s ecific we11and system

<6 in. for at least 2.5 months (measure water mal1</llchen lne) or wate deolh lnco1Tecl for specific weua d system 0 <6 in. In association with eitne~ car;als, ditches. swares. cu!v'"'.S. pumps, and/Or wellf1elds, or these fac!ors cause waler deplri i:i bP. 100 0 d~ep f:'Jr specific syslem 3 e,1 Alternate to c. for Saltwater, t)'ac*'sa (tidal) systems 0 >10 in wa1erdep!h <2 t1. or"I 1egular basis during grnwing season c-2 Altornate to c. for >5 :n 10 1010 waler depth on regular basis during qro""mg s&.:isun High Marsh (Juncus-Distichlis) season 3 c.,3 Alternate t:1 c. far 2 Riverine $ys,ers Page 4 of6 W.A.T.E.R.

• Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluation Matrix Data collected on March 22, 2004 Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL-Turkey Pt. Expansion 47.42 acres EPA, FDEP, ACC"-, NMFS, USF & w, SFWMD & Dada County Polygon Poly on Polygon Mangrove roperty

• Mangrove Property*

East of L.-31 E Without East of L.-31E With Preservation Preservatron o =", 1cat,~n o poor watar qual1\y ( ab teshng require , a v::i11....-es wi'.Ji!r'! 3 acceptable range) No vis...:ai 111dicators o poor water ql.'al,ty observed (1 vatus JUS! over or

d. Waler Qua, <y under accep!able range) 2 1.5 1sua :ndicators o poor waler qual,ty questionable ( values over or under accep!able range)

Visual Indicators ot poor water quailly observed or lab verifi&C tva\ues 0 are out of accep!able range) una11ered 3

e. ln!actness of historic topography (soil C*sturbance) 2.5 2.5 Mooerate!y allered soil d1sturbanre < 25% of assessment area Ex!reme:y a!tefed soil disturbance, may exceed 50% of asses.smen!

area 0 Organic sci! classlfled hydric soil> 12 i-i. or any thickness over bedrock!e<1prock witli perched water tab!e and either condilion covering 3 >90% ot s:Jrtace area Or9anrc soi! classified hydric: soil >5 1n. bt1I <12 In. and covering ::.go:i;., f, Soils, organic (fresh systemr,) of surk1ce area Orga:11c soil classified hydric 50,' ~i 1(1- b~:I <6 In. and coverv*g >:<C.% but <-80%: of surf.ace arcJ Orga'1ic soil classined non~hydnc sJii <1 ln. for >50% of svrfa:e area 0 Sanoy scu classified hydric sol! wi::i c.s:i!"lCI mottling and concreto"s 3 reseri 'f'I ~reaterthan40% ofiio:-:zc::m, Sar.dy s~l c!assifi.ed hydric soil witti mowing and concretions presef'l:t to 2 f.1 Alternate to f. for > 20% bJt c; 403/4 of horizon. Fmshwa(or, sBltwa/er sysrems Sandy scil classlfled t,ydflc soil w1tr-: lignf or sp,3rse mottling a1d concretions < 2 mm diameter or< 20% of horizon. Sandy soil exhibits .strong ev,';"1cn-:.':1 01 disturbance or mecna:i!cat rnon.µ~lations or is fill mateoal caica~eo:.rs !earn >12 in. and >93 % Jal surface area 3 f*2 Alternate to f. for Cai::areous ,oam >6 in. to <12 ts. a1c >90% of surface area 2 3 3 Frsstiwater. sa'!'water. brackish (tidal) .systems Ca!carecus ioam >1 In, 10 <6 1n. anc covering >50% bul <90% cf surf~ce area Calcare:-us iozim <1 in for >50% oi surface area Page 5 of6 W.A.T.E.R. -Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Reviews . Scoring conducted by: BIii L. Maus Mitigation Bank Wetland Function Evaluatlon Matrix Data collected on March 22, 2004 Based on WBI, WQI, WRAP, HGM and 4th Priority Project List (PPL) with technical advise from FPL-Turkey Pt. Expansion 47.42 acres EPA, FDEP, ACOE, NMFS, USF & W, SFWMD & Dade County Poly on Pol gon Pol gon Mangrove Property

• East of L-31 E With Preservation Preservation

4. Salinity Parameters Apply to frel!ihwater, saltwater, brackish, hype{(la/ine and mitigation systems *

<2 pans per thousand (ppl) 3 a, Optimum salinity for fresh systems during growing 2 to 3 parts per thousand (ppt) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 4 u, 5 pai,s per thousand (ppt) Apply to freshwa/er sys/ems within 5 mlles of the coast >5 parts per lhousand (ppl) 0 a-1. Alternate to a. 6 lo 8 parts per thousand (ppl) 3 Optlmum salinity for brackish systems during growing 9 lo 13 parts per lhousand (ppl) 2 1.5 1.5 season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 14 lo 16 parts per lhOusand (pp!) 1 Apply lo brackish (lids// systsms onty >16 parts per thousand (pp!) 0 a-2. Alternate to a. f 7 10 19 parts per lhousand (PPI) 3 Optimum salinity for saline systems durlng growing 20 lo 22 parts per thousand (PP!l 2 season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 23 lo 25 parts per thousand (pp!) Appfy lo saline marsh (tidal) systems only >25 parts per lhousand (ppl) 0 a-3. Alternate to a. 26 u, 41 parts per thousand (ppt) 3 Optimum salinity for hypersaline systems during growing 42 lo 46 par!s per thousand (PPI) 2 season based on mean high salinity for a normal year. 47 lo 51 parts per lhousand (ppl} Apply lo hypersalins (/Jda/J sys/ems only >51 parts per thousand (ppl) 0 a-4 A/tema te to a. bouom (lower) thin:! beiween 12 10 25 ppl 3 Oplimum salinity for rlverlnMida! creek Syslem duting middle lhird between 5 to 1 f pp!. growing season based on mean high slainity for a normal upper (lop) third betweem Oto 4 ppt. year. 251<) 32 pp! 2 Apply to riverine sys/ems only ppl. boltom (lower) lhird between 30 lo 40 pp! middle third between a 10 29 ppt. upper (lop) third betweem Olo 7 ppt. bollom (lower) lhlrd between 35 lo 50 PPI 0 middle lhird between 10 lo 34 ppl. upper {lop) ihird betweem o lo 9 ppl. Cotleur H..rlng, /no, Cumulative Score (SC) _ _ _ _;:.3::;5*,-::5,__ _ _ _ _ __ , 3 8 i ' , " ' : . 5 ; ; , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.T.E.R. cr..ted by: S/11 ~. Maus Maxirnurn Possible Score [MPS l ____5"-1__.o_o'--_________5_1_.o_o_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1111/1998 WAT E.R =Cumulative Score/Maximum Possible Score 0,7 0.75 Page 6 of6 APPENDIX D CULVERT DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT AREA D - CONNECTIVITY PIPES FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 57S., RANGE 40E. DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SHEET INDEX RHRH 'NTIIIIID SHUT -rffll,lJ!DCRIPiiltlf Cl CQ'IPISIC&l l'IIOPOS[D sm: ,....,. I'll l'IIOPOS[D sm: ,....,. Im.I ont,IU !ITU ccrollLS l7TU ccro11LS DIU CC,AILS s,, IIOTD MIO S,[ClrlCATIOMS Sl':I NOTO MIO SPEClr!C,\TIOMS sn NOTU MIO S,[ClrlCATIIINS lllBtt.ll,lt l!fb INC. CONSULTING CIVIL CHGIHCCRS, SURVEYORS~ MAPPERS "Pv.rhwrs For &sulls, Yalu, By DHign" 3550 S.W. Corporol* SPR a: Pottrwoy, Polm City, Florido .34990 * (772) 2118-,388.3 f°OII: (772) 2118-.3925 f'BP[ Uc:41nM Mo: 959 ..... lblh.com ---- =~~=:;:~===========:::: =====~;;;:i:;;:1====::;;;:::::::;::===::::r -h . CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS "Po:rtners For Results, i------------1 Sheet P-1 PROJECT NAME: TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT AREA D - CONNECTIVITY PIPES INC. Value By Design" 3550 S.W. Corporate Porkwoy, Polm Cily. Florido 34990 Computed: FRC Dote FILE NO. Project No. (772) 286-3883 Fox: (772) 286-3925 11/23/2004 BPR & FBPE License No: 959 www.lbfh.com Checked: SO 01 0074 l!fh INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS .. Pa:rtners FoT ReS1..dts. Value By Design" Sheet P-2 3550 S.W. Corporote Parkway, Palm City, Florida 3-4990 Computed: FRC Date FILE NO. Project No. (772) 2B6-3883 Fax: (772) 286-3925 11/23/2004 t1-om1nr,_.P,...,u""" 01-0074 BPR & FBPE License No: 959 www.lbfh.com Checked: SD t':\Ul-UU/4\1 Ul'ke t'0int\01-0074 Turke Point Oil D-1.dw LBFH 8.5x11 D-1 12/6/2004 10:13:36 AM Russ-C LBFH Inc. Drawing Nome: P:\01-0074\Turkey Point\01-0074 Turkey Point Dtl 0-1 .dwg Layout Nome: LBFH 8.5x 11 D-1 - Plotted by: Russ Cook - Date: 12/6/2004 - 10:13 AM - LBFH, ' Inc. ro -0

0 TOP Of PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE EXISTING TOP OF ACC£SS ROAD EL = (+/-) J .94-'* TRANSMISSION LINE 58.0' CCESS DAO. E :i,2.5' 1B.O' 20.0' 18.0' 11WfSM6SJON U,[ IICCf5S IIQlrO EXISTING WATER EL (+/-)1.5' INSTAU.£0 -411"1 H.D.P.E. PIPE INV. EL (+/-) -2.06'*

J,0' ACCESS ROAD CROSS SECTION FOR 4e*t1 H.D.P.E. N,T.S.

• INVERT AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE flELD BY FP&L'S ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT AND AN ENGINEER OF RECORD.

(") (") (/) (/)

J" 0  ::J" 0

,r (1) 0 0 3 (1) (1) m "O r+ (1) C

a. r+

(1) a. (./) .,.,;::o c, m zf> 0 0 n 9c::, \) __. 0 C) 010 ' W:::I r __. 0 en '-.._(l) r+ co Q) ~::r N N § oc CD 47.0' N ' 0 -u 13.5' 20.0* 13.5' 0 .p. m ~ LH: ACClSS ttCW> INSTALLED 24"1 H.D.P.E. EL (+/-)0.5'*

!] ---j ISTING WATER EL (+/-)1 .5' r

z [Tl 0

0 C

o

~ j ~ z z -0 l fT1 0 r RIP-RAP CULVERT ENDS, TYPICAL ACCESS ROAD CROSS SECTION Iii 0 z G) !'. ---j ---j :c SEE TYP. RUBBLE RIP-RAP DETAIL SHEET, D-J FOR 24 "fl B.D.P.E. < fTI -l N.T.S.

! X

-0 )> @ *NUMBER OF PIPES, INVERT, AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE AELD BY FP&L'S ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT AND AN ENGINEER OF RECORD. -u U)z N 0

7) 0 0

.i,. fT1 z (./) r -0 ro

o "Tl 0c;_ I fTI

:::i

("") 0 ---j a. OJ 0 c'-,j N-1 2 I B JO INT . --t 0 12"-60" DIAMETER 0 N ~ 20 0 .,, PIPE SIZE A B C 0 0 12 in 14.45 in 14.02 in 13.63 in u .,., (300 mm) * (367 mm) 1356 mm\ (346 mm) Q'. 15 in 17;57 in 16.98 in 16.54 in i (375 mm) (446 mm) (431 mm) 1420 mm\ "'CJ . 18 in 21.20 in 20.58 in 20.02 in 2 0 (450 mm\ 1538 mml (523 mm) (509 mm\ a: 24 in 27.80 in 29.90 in 26.33 in (600 mm) (706 1nm) (759 mm) (669 mm) N I 30in 35.10 in 33.82 in 33.27 in B C A 0 (750 mm) (892 mm) (859 mm) (845 mm) - )( \{) 36in 41 .70 in 39.60 in 39.29 in <Xi (900 mm) (1059 mm) (1006 mm) (998 mm\ a:~ 42in 47.70 in 46.18 in 45.83 in (1050 mm\ (1212 mm) (1173mm) (1164 mm) 48 in 53.60 in 52.16 in 51.72 in 11200 mm) (1361 mm) (1325 mm) (1314 mm) 60in 66.30 in 64.58 in 64.32 in (1500 mm) (1684 mm) (1640 mm) (1634 mm)

• GASKET MEETS ASTM F477; LUBRICATION REQUIRED FOR ASSEMBLY

• • B = OD OF BELL ALL SIZES ARE ALSO .AVAILABLE IN WATER TIGHT NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL c.:) .. .; :: . n ;;**. . PIPE JOINT .DETAIL

~~ l\ c u ~ Sean 'cNo. . ~onahu~-

• 53.840

,'.P .E. N.T,S. '*OEC o*s 200't**

taf8;*tnc ..No :* 959 .

3550 s.W .' <:;orpor,;1te Parkway ~ ~::, l!i!fI! Palm City, FL*34990 CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & f.4APPERS "Partners For Results, Sheet DETAILS Scale: 1 "=200' D-2 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT@ 2004 LBFH Inc. PROJECT NAME: TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT AREA D - CONNECTIVITY PIPES !:: INC. Va.lue By Design" ~ 3550 S.W. Corporote Parkway, Palm City, Florido 34990 Computed: FRC Date FILE NO. Project No. S'. (772) 286-3883 Fox: (772) 286-3925 11/22/2004 OHI074 Tmy Poit Ill ~I 01-0074 !?! Checked: SD a.-----------..--------11111111111---------------------------------... BPR & FBPE License No: 959 www .lbfh .com ~ CCI ....I 1 0 8 ~ ci ci a <Ii .,,_ z 0 0 u a:: "~ 0 a: I Q 00 2: ~ i; E 0 ~ 2: a: al ...J

i

~ 0 ....I =. 9 c,, ~ I ~ Q F.: ~ ] ~ S? ...~ 1 0

0. .I I- ...

C

• of lf ,..>-' .::

, ,.. . ,Ii t--

8 I i. ."'~d. .: ~J u. z ~ ~ ~ ... ~

• ., ~

a. VI!:

0.

• i"'i

~ / s l/11 .~* . a~_.,

i-'.

t-- 8 I * . ~ P.E. 0 /

Ne>. 53840 ci:

4i E _-*,,PEC .O6 200lt Q z -** . LBF.1-t,' lnc*:* No, 959: s.w. c,, -.fU C 3550 *corporate Parkway ~ Q.!: 11,t-f! Palm City, ~L 3499 INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS~ MAPPERS ".Pclrtners For Results, ValU8 By Dasign" Scale: Sheet DETAILS 1 "=200' D-3 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT@ 2004 LBFH Inc. PROJECT NAME: nJRKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT AREA D - CONNECTIVITY PIPES J550 S.W. Corporate Poti<woy, Palm City, Florido J4990 Computed: FRC Dote FlLE NO. Project No. (772) 286-3863 Fox: (772) 286-J925 11/22/2004 BPR & fBPE Ucem1e No: 959 www.lbfh.com Checked: SD IIHll&1nJN,IIU-I 01-0074 P:I01-0074\Turke Point\01-0074 Turke Point Dtl D-1 .dw LBFH 8.5x11 D-4 1/26/2005 4:43:08 PM eva-v LBFH Inc. Drawing Nome: P:\01-0074\Turkey Point\01-0074 Turkey Point DII D-1.dwg Layout Name: LBFH B.5x11 D-4 Plotted by: Eva Velez Date: 1/26/2005 - 4:43 PM LBFH, (.,j Inc. I ,,;o CD (JI (JI 0 TOP OF PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE CROWN OF INSTAllEO 24", H.0.P.E.

0 1/1 (1) IICCESS ROAD EL - (:1:) 4.50" EL (:1:)2.50'*

~Q::E < -.,-.J . cii' ~ co"-'n ,, ...... 0 o*

s J'Tl,-.,-a

~ ra,O o*f o ~ '-... w . - - 'iZ LISTING WATER EL :1:1.5' (D i;l (.,J a, n N en ,. a, ,, 0) (J'J z (.,j 0 ~  : U)Z 0 0 '-01>>---:o (/'Jr O _ ~ "Tl~ ~ cUl 0 1 - . 0, we~ U> ** "<:l  ::o e.. :l < !:j C (X)3~'TI =n . .:c )>* 2. INSTALLED 24", H.D.P.E. INV. EL (:I:) 0.5'* Polypropylono Alter Fabric co,...,,,, -.JO ~ ~ ~z g;:;.- n.:.. :z ? _ -..1-i,1 ~" . ..0.., *::5 g~ -~ z ~ fil ~3 ~ (") n UlO "i1 ~< - 3::. "O

• CROSS SECTION

!Jl~ !ii' 0"i  ;= ~

f. Ol.

~w~? ~UMBER OF PIPES, INVERTS AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN ... .., :e...,.. ~ -

f. I .., Cl)~

z (l)~(P<.o 0 .THE FIELD B'I' FP&L'S ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT AND AN ENGINEER

f.c..io

_ CD :J, IQ Cl)

CTN Q.

1

t "1]" COco 01'"O *CO

i

:z o-.

(1) <.Tl ... Of RECORD. ~UI o .... :;Q ..... . *. I 0 0 (.,j -I>- YI Ul ~ -7' ~

• -* Bottom Width Recommended Toe-In 3 CD CD .!Jl QI 1. Slit Fence 11holl be Installed per manufacturH 1poclflcotlon prior to th*

-< tart of construction and shall not be r.moved untll conetructJon ia complete. 0 Slape Side Aa Nec-ary 2. ~ ~a:=~d~:::!!,t'"~=~t n°.°!,~'!;~r the 1llt tone ofter each rain event 0 0 (/) (/) e . I') \er 0 :r 0 Cl 3. Removed Ndlmenl 1haN be dpoa1ted in on area that will not contribute 0 Place & Compact 1adimonl otr.it. and can be permanently ,tablllzad. (1) 0 3 Cll 0 ~ 7'." -0 ,... Cll !'! C i.: Specification~/ 4. The Ht fence shall be placed on lope contour to mmcimlre ;ta ponding (1) ,... C _. officl.rlcy.

0. (1)

= 5. If ditch level la deper than 30*, then a Rooting Slit Screen 1hall be u1ed. 0. II .... SILT ,,;;o 0 I N 0 0 fTl i .,,,E . .s Initial Backfill FENCE DETAIL N.T.S. (/) 0 () .p.. 0 ~ .D Cl) r E (/) "' . Haunching Bedding 48" 0 "'O ii: .i; Foundation _. ,... . :::0 a* o.c. ,,r 0 0 "-... Cll t... N (Tl N "-... )> ~ ;;o 0 ~ N  ;;o 0 fTl z)> 0 )>

1. Depth at pipe may be field adjuated ta meet 1peclal condition, aa determined by the Owner'* ReprasentatJve.

0 )> .p.. ~ 2. All trenching ohaH comply with tho requirements of the Florida Trench Safety Act. 0 (Tl -0 0 3. FOUNDATION* Whore the trench bottom ii unotablo, tho contractor 1holl excavate to a depth required by tho engineer and replace with a foundaUon of cla11 I or II material oa defined ~ -I :E in ASTM 02321, "Standard PracUco for lnatallatian of Thermaplastlc Pipe far Sewer* and r

z rrl ()

::0 0

C ~ fTl

o Other Gravity-Row Applicatlan1." latest edition; aa an alternative and at the diacretion of the engineer, tho trench bottom may bo stabilized using a

• woven geotextlle fabric.

4. IIEllQIHll: Suitable matotlal hall bo claaa I, II ar Ill and lnatollod ae required In ASTM I 0 z R" 02321, latest edition.

z 7J I fTl 0 r Unles otherwise opecified by tho engineer, minimum bedding thickness shoU be 4" (100mm) far 4*-24* (100-600mm) and 42"-48"(1050-1200mm) conugalod polyethylene pipe (CPEP); 6" li! () :z G) '.i: -I - I (150mm) for 30"-36" (750-800mm) CPEP. I < rn -I 5. HAUNCHING AND IN[W BACKALL- Suftablo material hall be cla11 I, II ar Ill and installed 01 required ~ X in ASTM 02321, laleol edition. 7J @ .,"[) )> 6. INITIAi BACKEJII

• lnlllal backflll ahall bo hand placed lo 12* above tho lop of the pipe.

0 -0 (/)

z I\.) .

0 Tho aail lhall be con10Udated by hand tamping or walking tho aail in place . 0_. '-* 0 7. F)NAL BACKEJLL* Final backfill material may bo machine placed. Material under n,odwaya (1) -0 0 ~ 0 fTl z may require apecial compaction and denalty teota. ' I 0 z (/) 7J r ,,I CD 8. llEliSID'.; All backfill ahall be compacted lo tho requlromonta of the SpeclficaUona. MANATEE EXCLUSION

0 0 !'.> 0c_ DEVICE DETAIL

---.J .p.. rn :J TYPICAL TRENCHING & BACKFILLING FOR 48- H.D.P.E. 0 -I fl N.T.S. N.T.S. ~ Rolallan.,lp: SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS (SHORT FORM) My ogr""'., t bol..., o.nw and En91n- ""all not b* can1tni.d to p,11'11<1* any obllgotlon Iran, tho Englnow lo any third partl,1 ridudlo;, but not !anrlod to, any .,., Notes: contracton (91"1*al or 1Ub). nar to any _c,non Ir, 11\Jo to th* UlldW Ofl)' 09'llffl .. t botw- ....... and En<.iri- -

• anly lo "'~* twa partle *

°""* Th rlvt, t,, -;:, rar oddltlonol ond/ar mOA dolal.od 1poclllca\lon1 ar,d <0'1d1Uono, pl..,., 111 th* a:: awnor' PRO.CCT WANU,_L Tho ownw' PROJECT WANUA( ..al .. pwc.do lhb, and any PwfClffllG'CIII llancl: ub11q11., t plan Ir, tho , _ t a, a CllflllcL i Rolor to tho ownw' PRo..£CT IIIAHUAL for bond requlrlffl nt.* .,,., <EERM. .,_..,

0 Scope of War1I:

a: Th* CantraclGr .... 1llmWI. .. matrillo, labor, ...,1pm9,1, t .... .,......llcn, Rolor to U,o ownw' PRo..£CT WAHi.JAL far ln1Urn0 "11""-t.* b-rin~I"" and hdd ..tahi , , _ , . to -.atruct .,.,.i1n9. nlnog;, and roaclwa)9 Pc;rtiol Pa)ffl.-ib: In aocord- with the ~

• af 111- ~ - t a , y Condltloft1, Spldllcialkln ond

,.... 1h11 llnl-om911 .,lltlad, Can1truct1an Plan and SpecfflcaU.,,,1 ror '1111 TURll£Y P0lfT Rolr to Iha awnw'e PRo..£CT MANUAL for portlal P*)ffl_,I lnlarmatlon. Ill CllPNCilON PROJECl - NU:A D CXNj[C'lMTY PIP£S" conolallo<;I of I ..Nia, laaNCI " - " '

• 2004 and .,,.arid by LBF'H no., ~ 9 Cn9"-'i. LJ,pdaled Dmnav-e It bi th1 ab.I~ al 111- clocum..,t,, ta a.-, lhl lo\al ..,.,,91,11.., ol tho ~

roq11lrod to pro'4do ~ roadway,, and apen,bl* -"9* and atarmwvt* 11 tho Cantractar lalo lo cornpl*I* U.. work within U.. lim* atotod in tho ,..,._,,.,, and a camputod In I:_,,, Can<#tlan , lhl Cantrvctar - poy tho mana~1m_,t r,,,pr.....,_,\ an tho "TURKE:Y ~ OPANSION PRO.l:CT - AIIEA D Own W ffaod and llqulda\1d darna9 .. a mabllllhod Ir, th o_., PRoJECT l,IAN\J,1,1.. COHHECll,,,lY Pl'!:S" ., 1H£ DRA'NNCS C 0 UClltllff.

• 45 '1111 _. 11 locGted In Dodi Caunt)II f'a1da ~ , of apprGldmaloly 1,000 - - . E'm,n or 0milonl In the Ora,,hf 01 Spedlk,o\lon"'

u SecUan 211 , T_.,lp 117$., RClftll 40[. t.c:

• 2a. Prior ta lr,ltlaHan ol tho .arl<,, tho Contractor ""°"r ct,ocl,; dlm.,llm* 9radn and ol....tlano .,,...., .., tho Drawtnp and IUfflfflGrJ Df nlfflatod 11JOflU\I.. lo .. .,,.

P..nlu ond U - . - thom -- that lhly 0,1 c...-.ct and th at tho ~ ...., b9 acc,,mplilllld a, Vl CanllnlcUon l)W'ffllt for et,1~ ollmor,b ar tho p,ojoet work 11- - . abtulned by .,,.,clod. Th* Cantroctar ehall loko no ad-.tovo ol any - 1 .,.,. ar arnlulon which ml91,t b9 - o d . but wll lmm-lol)' notify tho t i , ~ - who . . th., th O.,,w, and lh* d.s191 and COMlnlc\lon , ~ _ , t , al tho PROJECT ,.hct ....,,trw,t, and can<1tlan1 mpaNd by 111... pwmlt.. Thoao loduff conll\Nctlan mall, .,ct, corrwctlon ..,d lotorp,'1tatlon1 a d -od n-owy far rllffoclln9 tho pw'ffll\. Iran, tho South Florido Wotw lolano,wn.,t Olstric:I. n,., Cantroctar .,c,11

• actual ..,.-it and Int.,\ ol tho DnJwlng and Sj,odllc<Jtlana.

perfarm all ~ and .,,. can1truct ""' PRO..f:CT Ir, accwdar,.., with U.. roqu~I* al th- porml\ and __,,.., co,,ln Df - or, awloblo Far th*lr rnlow ar,d UH Sol and Sul>-Sol Candltlans: Iran, tho En9ln-, uparo ,.qu*L Adcltlanall)', tho Can~tar ot,c,11 __,,, ,. othw work l)W'ffllll, -- ar ,.....,... required la pwfarm th* ...._ and lllo)' llhall It I Ille alo and Hduolw r1111an ibllty of th* Cantractar ta: perform tho ~ ri otllct accardanc* with tllOIO porml\, a,pprowo:llo, a, llc.!to - I. Pl- a-. lnlWl!rllallon on any and all al and oub- al clalo portJayad on ~.... .., Ta 0th<< Doa.,111.,b: lh1,Drawt,p; far b....,.t)', ,.,.,.,co may b* mado la 01119' .,,.c1noa11an, o, -m..ta -

• IHI 2. P . . - _, ool ..,d --*al i,,YM1Jvatloll ta d,\..,.,i.,. 0,,, ...,1u..., ctoorn\w, u'"d to !)Idly or control tho matorlol placed In the ~ . tho ..,.,,1tuc\1on mothod loeotlan and ""1w,t of ,. oal and "'b-ool -tlan thal may affoct tho ww1o; and la IHI ulld, the talwanca U..,t wll b* accll)loblo. and contractual ar 1119'11 abll90Uan -

n,, .,,.dllcotlan1 ar doc,,,n-,t .,al illcludl: l. Ind- Ir, Ille cc,nlroct prico caneldwatlan rar all - n_,,-,. to "".,,. that tho MIi and ub-1al condition I wll m ol lhl requlrlffl_,t,, al Ill Spoclncat1an1 and th -nca,1, ......,iouan, ol Dodo C:0..nty.

1. *standard G-.:,1 c...dltlon* ol lh* Canatnic11on Cantroct," 1933 EdlUan, prll)orod by ""' En~_,* .,.,_,\ Cantnict Docum'"t CarnmlttM and publi.hod by tho lHE 'IIORK Hollmal Saclft)' al Prolealanol Enp-. R,,...,c. -

Can.-!ian -' bl rr.odo: *c.n- P,w-oar,1ruc1Jan CG!,_..,

2. 'Florido D111ortm_,t ol Tran111artallan Starwlwd SpeclllcaU'"" lar Rood and R1lw ta b'I* awnw' PROJECT MANUM. lar pre-<0'11"11ctlan ccnf..,.., roqulr..,.,,ta.

Bridg. Can lructlan, 2000 odltlan," pubjl....,. by tho Florida ~lmw,t Df Tran"'°'tallon . R,f...,c. -,,a11 b* made TOOT SpoclftoaUan -" CanlilMnClffl.,\ ond Ccmp.Uon of th* Wai1c

l. "Fl- D9portm ..t ol Tran~atlan Raod'oa)' and Traffic 0."'91 Standardo. R,r .. ta lhl ...., .... PROJECT 1,!ANUAL far carnm.. c1mont and Cl'fflpllllon Jcn.,ar, 2000 edition," p<bllhod by lhl Florida 0.pcrtmont of T,..,~atlan. roqulrlffl.,t,,,.

R,,...,coo ltlal be mod - 'ftlOT ride><.. E llrnated QuontlU.s:

• • "lkt.. °"'9> w.,,aron....,, t.o- 31E, S.c11on 3, and Cantrel Slrllchn 20 and 20A," C.S f'Jorldo Project. Part V, SUp!Hffl.,t 42. U.S. Nm'f CG<lil al Englne<<9, The 11Jan!ftln Hl!motod la, _ ...... ltlffll of - CIA ...i, Hlfflal11, and may "ot

-....-.11. ., _ _.....,l);etrlct. a, DOI.I',;JO July 1!HI,. R,,_.., llhall bo mado: "Doto* a..ivn ,.~,c1 al the 11.,,, of work or the rt,al quan UU.. nM<lod lo complete tho pro)ocl. Th*'° 11JanUtlea CINI -)oct to loa*OI* or docr.M b)' the Ownw to m.... lhlffl conform to Ill* p r - or _ . Hloc1od and Ill* ro111an Mbllt)' of 11M Cantroctar ta '- "Am*lcon Sodol)' lar T1atlo9 and lilatorlol Spodflcallan *

• lotnt R*t__,,;,e: ehal b modr.

"""'°"* do ,. - and lo l\imlII and lo.tall all ~ . , t , , at,...., an tho Dran,p. wheU,w lh*y ore st.o-n In the estheted quon Ulln., or ..,_th. the &al quGt1UU*

• A.Sllll*.

or, r,,or ar lou than t""- Hllmatod. Po)'IIW1t of .. ""It prico warlr. ohall bo an By **1-c* "" "-""\a dtod - ar* mod* port ol th*" Supp41m.,l"')I' tho bab 1tolod In Porogropll 11.9.1 af tho Conn Candltlana. Candltlan1 and st,IClflcoUan - Th* Can1nictar - ...,.. ca,plea of Nd! ri U,olr _....., lar uH thiouvi,out thb, pra)oct ~ Harlzanlal and v.tlcal Control: ,.ddltlonally, 1119 ~ llal bo pwfarmld In , accard...,co wltll ,. athw QP!Ollccbl* local, Th* Canlraclar "1all can1ln1d lh1 ro11Jlrld lmpr_m.,i. lo the loeoUan " ' - on n,g-. lato and rod- Ian. ,..,_,iatlono and codH lr,dudln9, but not llmltod la, u,, r odwal C)cQjpaUanal Safety ancf HtOlth ,.cL th* Drcwln118, and ot,c,11 u'" a horU:antal control p~t,, 11w parcel carn,ro and b nc:hmarli* at th, *It* ror UN lo ntobjlohln9 ""' noc-, ,.....,u..,, and v,odn. The ..acl lacallan1 and 1',.-\ ol,,..,Uan al ij,1 piiJoo and 1111mbw ol plii ..,,. b9 ODN'IRACT 159.U fft.,,...,od by Flalda Poww and I.Jvhl Company, (fPti.'1) oppn,-..d .,"4rD,m.,talllt and .,p,_ al .-.cord priar ta ..,.,,ltucUan ci.nn CG!dltlans: ~ I a n of ""'11 MIii 0111-l.1,,1 . . . olh_...H 1\alod In 111- ~-_,t"'}' Condition

• tho pro,Aoian1 ol lh*

• standard <,-,wal Candltlan* al lh* Canll\Nctlan Contract.* ,,,* .,cod oba.._ - b1 Th* eo..tl"CK'tar - I -,llnoh U,olr - ~ with u,. work or lff1,r-.i.,to of

• alh.-.

uood to - ,. r..... od. .,Hd Ir, tllo, Gon- C.,,,dltJono ror 1h11, pra)ocl. with , _ d to "" conowetlan. or lor th* n - al r1mlh'OI, ,,.ocatlan ar oltwoUan of eld11Jn9 roc1n1-. n,1, lodudH, but 11 nat 11m1t1d to, Dodo c....,1.,. Eloc1rlc ~Sean-c~*Dona.hue, ,C~ ill--::P.E. CcmpanlA. Boll South, Cablo, Go,. cantrac1on, 1Ubcantroctar* ar a9.,t *

• Standor,11 ror Qudlly and Worllman""~

and othar Utllty Companlu, and tllolr _, . No. 5384(? M motorlolo, ln~"'t>oratlan ~ w , I and 1UppllH fumbnod by 11M C.,,,t,oc:1.cr !or p1tman.,1 In tt,e ~ - I b9 nn and or quality ,tandord1 1111C1llecl. '#erlcman"""" at,al b* Int-doe* and the flolohod product *11Jal ta tho bal oe<:ePlod 1tanda,. al tho \raff la, tho oat"9"}' of warli porfarmed. ~*DEC O6 200!t Powor and Watr. M om,n9 m.,t,, and co \ lar l1mpar"'}' p<111W and watw dln19 can,tru~tlon ohall LBFK Inc. No. -959 b1 th* r.111an.t.llty ol tt,, Canlroctar,

_j550 ..S.\JV. Corporate Parkway

• ,:;._'* ...**Palm.Clty, -FL .34990

~ ~ 1!2fh. . :.... . NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS CCNSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS .t MAPPERS "Partners For Results, Scale: 1 "=200' 1----------1 Sheet SP-1 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT PROJECT NAME: TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT AREA D - CONNECTIVITY PIPES @ 2004 LBFH Inc . !:: INC. Val'!.18 By Design"

! 3550 S.W. Corporota Porl<woy, Polm City, Florido 34990 Computed

FRC Dote FILE NO. Project No.

~ (TT2) 286-3883 F'ax: (772) 286-3925 11/22/2004 ... ..,,,.,..,,.,.,.,_,... 01 0074 a.:.__B*P*R-&*F*B*P*E*U*'c*e*n*se_N*o*:*9*59---*w*w*w,..1111 bl*h111 om.,...... .c1111 c.h*e*c*ke*d*:--S-O_..__ _ _ _ _ _ _.__ _ _ _ _ _ _.____-_ _ _ _.. Obserw,g the Worl<: The record Information shall be certified by a Florido Professional Surveyor and Mapper. Ill Ill At the election of the Owner, the progress and quality of the worl< may be obHrved by Locations shall be mode by reference to centerUne stationing and offset or by other means

, the Owner's Engineer or Engineer's appointed employee. No observer Is authorized to acceptable to the Owner. Elevations shall be according to Notional Geodetic Vertical Datum a: (NGW). The Information *hall be submitted on a clean set of construction drawings which change any provisions of the Speclflcotlons without written authorization of the Owner's Engineer, nor shall the presence nor absence of on observer retleve the Contractor from con be obtained from the Engineer.

• any requirements of the Drawings and Specifications.

Guarantee: The Contractor sholl give the Engineer a minimum of 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> notice prior to required Inspections, and shall supply all equipment neceuory to properly test and Inspect the Refer to the owner's PROJECT MANUAL for worl<monshlp guarantee requirements. completed work. In addition to the Inspection requirements stoled In the Dode County Specifications, preYloualy referenced, the followlng minimum construction Inspection checkpoints shall be CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS adhered to, and the Controctor shall no~lfy the Engineer for lnopectlon:

1. Prior to any significant deYlotlon from the Drawings; t. If any previously unknown historic or orchoeologlcol remains ore discovered on the site at

2. Prior to bockfllllng trenches containing hydraulic conduits, so that jointing may be any time, the FP&L shall be lmmedlotely notified of what hos been found. The FP&L Inspected; will Initiate the federal and state coordination required to determine If the remains

3. Upon encountering organic material In excavations; warrant a reco-y effort or If the state la eligible for listing In the Notional Register of

4. . Upon delivery of select drainage or stobntzotlon material; Historic Places.

5. Lamping of lines for all hydraulic conduits;

6. Upon completion of construction for final Inspection with the Contractor or their ,2. Activities shall be conducted In a manner that does not cause violations of State Water 0::

V) representative. QuoUty Standards. The Contractor shall Implement best management practices far erosion and pollution control to prevent violotlon of State Water Quality Standards. Temporary Ill erosion control shall be Implemented prior to and during construction, and penmanent C 0 Existing Utnltles ond Structura: control meOS1Jres shall be completed within 7 doyo of any construction activity. Turbidity z barriers shall be Installed and maintained at all locations where the posalbntty of 0 u Existing utnttles, structures and focftltles shown on the Drawings were located as accurately transferring suspended solids Into sensitive lands exists due to the proposed work. ~ as possible from the records examined. No guorontee I* mode that all existing facilities Turbidity barriers shall remain In place at oil locatlons untR construction Is completed

• u

., ore shown or that tho** shown ore entirely occurote. The Contractor sholl be 099ured of ond soUs ore stabUlzed ond vegetotlon has been established. Thereafter the contractor the actual location of the utnltlea, structures or focnttles prior to performance of any warl< shall be responsible for the removal of the barriers. The contractor shaR correct any cl ~ In the vicinity. The utility companies or utRlty agencies wnl cooperate with the Contractor erosion or shoaling that causes adverse Impacts to the water resources. ..5 In locating underground utllltles that may be subject to damage or Interruption of services

c "O during the Contractor's operations, Prior to start of the work, the Contractor shall IL 5 request eoch utility agency to advise them of the location of their focllltles In the vicinity.

3. All practices shall be In accordance with the guidelines and specifications described In Chapter 6 of the Florido Land Development Manual; A Gulde to Sound Land and Woter 5 ., Ill The Owner will asSIJme no llobQlty for damages sustained *or costs Incurred becouH of the Management (Deportment of Environmental Regulation, 1988). lncorporoted by reference c.; 0 Contractor's operation In the vicinity of existing utnttlea or structures, or to the temporary bracing and shoring of some, In the event that It Is necessary to shore, brace or swing o In Rule 40E-4.091, F.A.C, and, oa a minimum, In keeping with these pion* and the

2 z utlllty, the utnlty company or department affected should be c1>11tocted ond their associated construction specifications.

ii. ~- permlsslon oecured as to the method used for any such work. 4. The Contractor shall notify FP&L. ACOE ond SFWMD of the anticipated construction start ~ ~ date. At least 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> prior to commencement of activity, the Contractor shall submit to FP&L. ACOE and SFWMD a written notice of commencement Indicating the actual start II. R toratlon of Domaged Ph~cal Featurea, Structuru or Utaltlu: date and the expected completl1>11 date. \lhen lhe duration of construction will exceed one year, the Contractor shall submit construction status reports on on annual basis. It shall be the responslbntty of the Contractor to repair, rebuild or restore to ' lts fonmer condition, any and all portions of existing utllltles, structures, equipment, appurtenances or 5. Within 30 dayo after completlon of construction, the Contractor shall submit a written phyolcal features, other than those to be paid for under this Contract, which may be stotement of completion and certification by a registered profeaslanol engineer or other disturbed or damaged due to this construction operation, at no coat to the Owner. opproprlate Individual as authorized by low. The statement of completion and certification shall be based on onslte observation of construction or review of as-bunt drawings for the purpose of determining II the worl< was completed In compliance with the plans and Environmental Features: specifications. DeYlotlons from the bid drawings must be clearly shown on the "record' drawings. All surveyed dimensions and elevations shall be certified by a registered It shall be understood bv the Contrnctoc and fudher lncornornted Into their Pion of worts surveyor. tho oreo surrounding the work J;s 90 envlrnomcotollv seo;,ftly,: greg Addltlonnl reaulrll!!!ments for construction procedures mov APPIY Jo ordm: to pcotcci anv ond all Hated ;rpcclcs within 6. The Contractor must obtain any required Federal, State, Local and apeclol District tho PCP led QCCCjl authorizations prior to the start al ony activity.

7. The Contractor Is hereby advised that Section 253.n, F.S. states that a person may not commence any excavation, construction, or other activity Involving the use of sovereign or Upon completion of the worl< but before final payment will be made, the Contractor shall other lands of the Stole, the title to which Is vested In the Boord of Trustees of the cleor and remove from the project areo, oil false work, equipment, surplus and discarded lntemol Improvement Trust Fund without obtaining the required lease, license, easement, materlola, rubbish and temporory structures which result from the worl< under this or other lorm of consent authorizing the propoaed use. Therefore, the Contractor la Agreement. and shall restore In on acceptable manner all property which hos been responsible far obtaining ony necessary authorizations from the Board of Trustees prior damaged during the prosecution of the worl<.

• to commencing activity on sovereign lands or other State-owned lands.

Record Information: 8. The Contractor must allow repr,esentatlves from the South Florida Water Management District to Inspect the construction octlvlty ot any time deemed necessary to ensure Upon completion of the work, but prior to submlttol ol the request for flnol thot It Is being, or has been occompllahed In occordonce with the plona and poymenl, the Contractor shall obtain and submit record lnlormatlon to the Owner. specifications. This lnlorrnotion shall Include the following:

1. Drainage Syotem:

GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES a) Location ond dimensions, Inverts ond other data for control structures; Location, size, twe, length and Invert of all culverts; 1. The Contractor shall ldentlly th* limits ol the construction site for FP&L molntenonce equipment by piecing borrlcades, flashers or other suitable Topographic survey of assessment areas. day/night markers around levee road construction areo. Said barrlcodes or flashers sholl be Installed within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of commencement af construction. Grading: 2. Other than fueling and routine servicing of the pump power units, no maintenance of vehicles or equipment will take place within the right ol woy nor Topographic survey to define dralnoge basins. sholl the FP&L's right of way be used for storage or parl<lng of vehicles or equipment.

• Miscellaneous:

J. The FP&L's vehicular occess shall be maintained at all times throughout all phases of the project. ~ . . Locations and . profile. Information of at! major roodwoyo and levees and dikes; L oIc ~: ~and , prom, Information :f all canals and ditches. 4. All pipe Joints shall be wrapped with filter fabric per the FOOT Index No. 280. The cost for filter fabric and joint wrapping shall be included in the cost . . .. ...*r**~ , *l~ I-r .,. . for th* pipe. ,, ~,_

5. Pipe shall be lnatolled In occordonce to FOOT Standard Specifications far S~an C. Donahu~, P.E. Road and Bridge Construction, Section 430.

No. 53840 6. All embankment placed shall be compacted to a minimum density of 98:C maximum density as deterTnlned by the AASHTO T-180* ,.* 7. Sod all slopes 4: 1 or steeper per FOOT Index ond speclflcotions. DEC 06 2004. 8. Install all drainage pipe per details and FOOT Specifications. LBFH,' lnc,,No. ~69 9. Any conflicts In the contract documents, detoUs, notes, specifications, etc. sholl be resolved meeting the more stringent requirement.

• . *35,50 S.W *..CorporaJe Parkway

~ a, 11,t-h' . _,: * ..Palm City,FL '34~ES AND SPECIFICATIONS CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS "Partners For Results, Scale: 1 "=200' Sheet SP-2 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT@ 2004 LBFH Inc. PROJECT NAME: TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT AREA D - CONNECTIVITY PIPES !::: INC. Value By Design" i! 3550 S.W. Corporate Parkway, Palm City, Florido. 34990 Computed: FRC Dote FILE NO. Project No . i ~ (772) 286-3883 Fox; (772) 286-3925 BPR & FBPE License No: 959 www.l~fh.com Checked: SD 11/22/2004 01-0lll Tn, flit 11M 111d !pdialbi !l'-1 01-0074 CL CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS

1. SITEWORK OEWATERING GENERAL A. GENERAL A. MOBILIZATION: Moblllzotlon shall meet the requirements of FOOT Section *101. This worl< shall Include, but Is not llmlted to, operotlons necessary for the movement of

SUMMARY

This Section Includes requirements for the removal of all surfoce and personnel, equipment, supplles and lncldentols to the project site, and for the subsurfoce waters from structure end canal excovatlon are°" together with establishment of temporary offices, bulldlngs, safety equipment and first aid supplies, requirements for steel sheet pDing cofferdams and temporary bracings.

sonltary and other facDltles, cs required by State end loco! lows and regulations. The - Except cs otherwise specified or indicated, selection of equipment, materiols, ond c001ts of bonds and any required lnsuronce, and any o.ther pre construction expense methods shall be the Contractor's responslblllty. The dewaterlng of any e*cavatlon necessary for the start of wor1<, excfudlng the cost of construction moterlals, shall also areas end disposal of ell water handled shell be In strict accordance with ell local be Included In this section. This section else Includes any end ell worl< related to the and state government rules and regulations.

nnal cleanup. - Reloted Worl< Specified Elsewhere: none specified

- The contractor shall make efforts to construct Improvements without dewaterlng

8. CONSTRUCTION SUR'<t:YING: The Contractor Is responsible for all consln.ictlon (I.e. at low tide or In wet hole) surwylng.

)(

8. PERMITS:

C. ' . CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Clearing and grubbing shall be performed within the

~ llmlts of the project worl< In accordance with Section 110, FOOT Specifications, for

-The Controctor shall make oppllcotlons and obtain ell required permits to Install and operate dewaterlng operotlons for the project.

"Standard Clearing end Grubbing," defined In Parographs 110- 2 and 110-3, This Item

a. of worl< shell Include, but Is not limited to, the complete removal and disposal of all C. JOB CONDITIONS:

VJ trees, brush, stumps, roots, grass, weeds, rubbish end oil other obsln.ictlons to a Conal and groundwater levels ct the sln.icture location ore highly varioble depending depth of 18 Inches below natural ground or design grade, whichever Is lower. The on canal operation schedules, hydrologlc conditions, e*lstlng site drainage worl<s, and areas to be cleared and grubbed generally consists of the orea to be fnted, drainage other foctors. The Contractor shell be fornntar with site-specific conditions at the end utlllty easements. However, It should be noted that prior to 1he removal of any structure location end develop dewaterlng requirements accordlngly.

trees, the Controctor shall confirm their removal with the Owner. All material shell be removed from the site of the project, and shall be disposed of In accordance with all D. PRODUCTS (NOT APPLICABLE) local, regional, State end Federol laws, regulotlons or ordlnonces. Material may be burned upon receMng oil required permits. Any unburned rernolns shall be legally E. EXECUTION disposed of.

DEWATERING:

D. EARTHWORK AND GRADING: - Prolllde odequate equipment for removal of storm, subsurfoce or cofferdom

a. All earthworl< end grading shall be performed as required to ottaln the finol leakage waters which inay accumulate In the Interiors of the cofferdorns or the grades, t~lcol sections and elevations shown on the Plans for the proposed project open excavations.

worl<. In all other respects, moterlals and construction methods for earthworl<, - All work for lnstollatlon of piping end structures shell be . performed In oreas free embankment, e*cavatlon end grading shall conform to the requirements of Section 120, from water. Furnish, Install, molntaln, and operate all necessary pumping and FOOT Speclficotlons. There wRI be some offslte to onslte houllng and some flit will be other equipment necessary for dewaterlng the work areas.

generated from onslte excavation. Any plastic material (A-2-6, A-2-7, A-4, A-5, - All dewaterlng equipment shall be In fin,t-class condition end shall at oil times A-6, A- 7 and muck) exposed on the foce of the loke slopes shell be completely be maintained and operated at the efficiency and capoclty nec...,,ary for removed or removed to a distance of 20' from the face of the lake slope and molntolnlng cofferdam and open e*cavatlon Interiors free of water.

.; reploced with compocted A- 3 moterlal, Bulldlng pods shall be filled, compocted and - Temporary fuel storoge and pumping facilities located within the FP&L right of E groded to 4" below finished floor end extended 5' beyond edges of buRdlngs. way shall be equipped with o sultobly designed and Installed, functlonol, tined 0 containment area sufficient to contoln leaklng or spltled fuels and ens. The

~

0 z b. Contractor must confirm_ subsurfoce conditions end prolllde foundotlon contractor Is solely responsible for molntenance of saU tined containment oreos.

, recommendotlons, If required prior to construction, - The contractor Is put on notice that should a spnt or leek occur, the contractor wHI take Immediate action, In accordance with Department of Enlllronmental

~ ~ Protection, Miami-Dade County Enlllronmental Resources Management or eny other

....~ .3 E. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL: Hay boles and turbidity screens shall be placed as required to prohibit turbid waters from teal/Ing the site. entity e*erclslng legitimate )lrlsdlctlon, to contain and deon up the split. All costs ossocloted with the cleanup procedures will be borne solely by the controctor. Costs

~ ~ DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS:

associated with restoration and follow-up testing *to assure conformance to agency standards Is the permlttee's responslblllty. Any spHls shall be Immediately brought to 2.

§ ~ FP&L's ottentlon.

_ I All labor, materlols end methods of construction shell be In strict accordance with the

.... a. minimum engineering end construction standards of Dode County, locol agencies and F. DEWATERING DISCHARGE

~ ~ FOOT Specifications. The Contractor shell prolllde all moterfols and lobor needed to complete that project worl< for dralnoge Improvements at the locations, size and twe shown on the

- All dewaterlng discharge shall be c-dlnated with Florido Power & Ught

• Compony.

~ 5 Plons for the followlng Items. Trench excavation and backfilllng operations shell meet the - Oewoterfng discharge shall not adversely lmpoct Florida Power & Light Compony 0:

(/) ~ requirements of FOOT Speclflcotlons, Section 125. Particular emphosls Is. given to Artlde operations,

- All dewaterlng discharge end associated woter quallty shell be In strict 125.8.3, backfllllng operations. The Contractor shell prolllde for the necessary density tests to

~

g -~ comply with this sec\lon. Pipe trench shall be dry whlle pipe Is being lold and "bedded" as per detoll orid FOOT Section 430. The controctor shall comply to Chopter 90-96, Laws of Florido, occordance with ott applicable regulotlons halllng )lrlsdlctlon and all oppllcable permits.

~  : a. which requires the Contractor performing trench e*cavatlon In e*cess of 5 feet deep comply with ell appllcoble trench solely standords end shoring requirements cs set forth In the Occupotlonal Safety and Health Administrations **covatlon safe\y stonclards, 29 C.F.R.

- All dewaterlng dlschorge shall be free end clear of slits, fines. and turbidity as required by applicable regulotlans halllng )lrlsdlctlon

] ~ 1926.650 Subpart P end. lncorporoted as the Stole of Florida Standord, aa *relllsed or updated. G. REMOVAL OF OEWATERING SYSTEM AND COFFERDAMS:

Remove dewaterlng system In such o manner as to allow groundwater elevatlons to slowty return to noturcl elevations, end cs lndlcoted.

~

iz A. Corrugoted Aluminum Pipe *(CAP): All CAP shall be olumlnum olloy round (or other as specified In the Plans) pipe hellcolly-wound comJgated pipe conforming to AASHTO-M 196-74 Except aa otherwise lndlcoted or specified, steel sheet pntng shall be removed from the project.

gJ - end FOOT Section 945. Pipe ends ct Joint shall be reinforced to the annular corrugation. All 0 .S joints In the olumlnum storm sew.- pipe shall be made water tlghl All connecting bonds shall z Ir_ £O be corrugated annulor coupling bonds. The 'joints shall be made water tight by use of Neoprene

r:: >-.

• Gosket ct least seven Inched (7") wide by ~* thick for culverts 36" diameter or smeller, end

~ _1/ iE not less th arr 10 Ji" wide for ell other diameters. All CAP shall be. lnetalled with maximum

..J -. m lengths to minimize joints.

j

.= -'

°'< ,:!: I

.... 0 3* BAO<AU. ANO GRADINO:

ri. 0 Cl) .!. 5: This section specifies the monner In which the Contractor shell perform: 1) Bockflll of trenches, I!! ~ "' and 2) Grading of llm erock road over the culverts.

~--*

,S c '!1

.g*o Cl)

~

~

~;

~ 8 A. Llmeroclc Backfill: Vmere called for an th~ Plons, the surfoce course shall be locol bonk run shellrock meeting FOOT gradation requirements and soeclflcotlans, ltmerock or coquina rock.

Materials and construction methods for the surface course shall conform to the requirements

~ ..- of Sections 200 and 250, DOT Specifications; whichever Is opplicable for the material prolllded.

Cross sections of the finished shell 1urface shell conform to those shown on end detoned In

'.;--~ the Plons.

~ C.-c.~\-*

Sean . _Donahue, P,E. _

... t')

r-- '-. ~ , NO*. 53840 . ~

{l o N All construction methods shall conform to the applicable porographs of Sections 120 and 125, Z 'f - DOT Speciflcotlons.

I ~a.

" ~ 8. Compaction Requirements: All compoctlon shall meet the requirement of 98 perc~t of the mo*lmum density cs determined by AASHTO T-180.

OEC O6.-2004- ** ,

i .;

?:- ~ ;_

I One Density test shall be performed every 250 LF of rood or 5000 s*.F., for eoch 1 foot Ifft.

Density test In trench back fill shall occur ct eoch 12" lift starting from 1' obove the crown of LBFH, Inc.

3550 s.w. Corporate Parkway No. 95 9 z O pipe.

~ g-8 Palm City, FL 34990 9 'i en

• 11,t-b

~ ~~ -~~~--~~~---------------*----------..-----------------------------1

~

~

INC.

SURVEYORS & MAPPERS NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, "Partners For Results, Value By Design" Scale:

Sheet 1 "=200' SP-3 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT@ 2004 PROJECT NAME: TURKEY POINT EXPANSION PROJECT AREA D - CONNECTIVITY PIPES LBFH Inc.

~... 3550 S.W. Corporate Parkway, Palm City, Florido 34990 Computed: FRC Date FILE NO. Project No.

, (772) 286-3883 Fox: (772) 286-3925 11/22/2004

~ BPR & FBPE License No: 959 www.lbfh.com Checked: SD Ol-l!J741""1 l\lil Nolen Spd'a,iol !P-1 01-0074 0..-----------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX E MITIGATION SUCCESS CRITERIA

FPL Turkey Point Expansion Project - Mitigation Plan MITIGATION SUCCESS CRITERIA December 10, 2004 Re-Vegetation, Monitoring, Maintenance and Reporting INTRODUCTION FPL is responsible for implementing the mitigation and monitoring of the Turkey Point Expansion Project Mitigation Plan. The success criteria listed below will be used to judge the success of the mitigation activities. FPL is also responsible for perpetual maintenance and management, and for practicing good stewardship for this program.

This section includes information about the criteria to be considered to determine success of the mitigation activities described throughout the Mitigation Plan. Also included are details about the re-vegetation process to be implemented, and the monitoring, maintenance and reporting requirements aimed at ensuring and monitoring success of the mitigation.

Preserve Areas have been established as a result of the Turkey Point Expansion Project Mitigation Plan. They include culvert installation areas west of the Transmission Right of Way (defined as Areas D-Mid and D-North), Scout Lagoon, and the five Cooling Canal Test Berms (ribs). These areas will be monitored and maintained as described in this section and shall be preserved in perpetuity. The only alteration allowed in Mitigation Preserve Areas will be removal of exotic plant material, refuse and debris, and planting of compatible vegetation unless required in the normal maintenance activities related to FPL transmission line systems in the area.

Prohibited activities in the Preserve Areas include, but are not limited to: construction or placing of building materials on or above the ground, dumping or placing soil (other than as required to plant native vegetation) or other substances such as garbage, trash and cuttings, removal or destruction of native trees, shrubs or other vegetation, excavation, and/or dredging or removal of soil material. No diking, recreational vehicle use and any other activities detrimental to drainage and/or water conservation shall be allowed.

Any other type of alteration to Preserve Areas shall require the approval of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).

WETLAND AND SEAGRASS MITIGATION SUCCESS CRITERIA The mitigation activities shall be deemed successful when the following criteria have been continuously met on the mitigation site for a period of at least two growing seasons (but no earlier than two years after the initial planting). The success criteria are expected to be met without intervention in the form of artificial manipulation of water levels (e.g.,

irrigation, dewatering). However, routine maintenance operations including the eradication of undesirable vegetation or replanting of desirable vegetation would be expected.

Success Criteria:

• Initial mitigation, by planting wetland plant species at test cooling canal berms and hydrologic improvements (culvert installation), shall occur within 90 days of completion of filling of wetlands for Unit.5 construction.

• Acreage: A minimum of 6.95 acres of wetlands within the Test Cooling Canal area and 1.07 acres within the Scout Lagoon area shall be determined to be jurisdictional pursuant to Section 373.421, F.S.

• Initial mitigation, by creation of Scout Lagoon and associated plantings shall be completed within 90 days of completion of filling of wetlands for Unit 5. However, the portions of the Scout Lagoon construction involving wetlands connections will begin as soon as practical after receipt of the Site Certification and the ACOE Nationwide 27 permit or the ACOE 404 Dredge and Fill Permit.

Seagrass transplantation will commence after receipt of the ACOE 404 Dredge and Fill Permit.

• Hydrologic connection (culverted) areas: Mangrove flats (Areas D-Mid & D-North) - >60% cover & 20% detrietal cover for total 80%;

growing naturally (propogules present), demonstrating improved overall health and biomass (size and leaf counts comparable to those east of transmission line patrol road).

• Mangrove/distichlis flats (temporary laydown restoration)- >40 %

cover; growing naturally after planting 80% of cover that was present prior to disturbance.

• Seagrass restoration shall meet success criteria based on submerged substrate achieving Braun-Blanquet scale score of 0.5 to 1.0 with individual ramets of Shoal grass and Widgeon grass present. Final success criteria would achieve Braun-Blanquet scale of greater than or equal to 1.3.

• Seagrass enhancement within Area C-West shall meet success criteria based on the submerged substrate achieving 0.5 to 1.0 interim with individual ramets of Widgeon grass present. Final success criteria would achieve Braun-Blanquet scale of greater than or equal to 1.3.

• On-site mitigation and restoration areas shall be maintained free (no more than 5% cover) of invasive exotic vegetation in perpetuity.

Desirable plants shall be reproducing naturally, either by normal, healthy vegetative spread, or through seedling establishment, growth and survival.

• Size distribution of installed trees, shrubs and mangroves shall demonstrate height increases with time as compared to measurements taken at baseline monitoring.

• The functional assessment scores (as defined by W.A.T.E.R. analysis) shall indicate that the functional value of the wetlands, after implementation of the mitigation plan, have-accounted for the functional loss of the project's impacts.

• Habitat enhancement: Complete juvenile crocodile habitat enhancements as proposed in test cooling canal ribs 3 & 4. Attain wildlife utilization within test cooling canal ribs.

• Water Quality: Salinity, conductivity, turbidity, pH measures within the mitigation areas of D-Mid and D-North shall support the assumption of reduction of salinity associated with the installation of the vertebrae culverts within the access patrol road. Salinity shall be reduced over 60% of mitigation area by minimum of 1 score point within WATER criteria - as scored within mitigation proposal.

• Culverted structures installed as part of this mitigation plan shall operate as designed.

The agencies (e.g., ACOE, NMFs, FDEP (Southeast District), etc) shall be notified whenever the mitigation is believed to be successful as defined by the success criteria listed above, but in no event earlier than two years after the mitigation is implemented.

FPL may request a successful mitigation determination that shall include a copy of the most recent Annual Progress and Mitigation Success Report and a narrative that describes how the reported data support the claim that each of the mitigation success criteria have been met.

WATER Assessment: Utilizing the monitoring data and reports and in conjunction with FPL, the ACOE and FDEP may inspect the site and request that FPL conduct a WATER analysis to determine that all polygons within the mitigation areas have reached the criteria required to attain the "with mitigation" scores, as shown in Appendix A -

Mitigation Plan, that were used to determine the potential credits for the mitigation areas.

FPL shall submit a revised mitigation plan if, three (3) years after completion of plantings, it is determined by FPL that the mitigation site will not meet the success criteria. The revised plan shall he submitted to ACOE and FDEP for review and approval. The new plan shall discuss why the mitigation site is not meeting the success criteria and propose a plan of action by which to correct any deficiencies in the original plan. The plan shall present a new proposed schedule for implementation and completion of the revised mitigation plan.

RE-VEGETATION WITH COMPATIBLE NATIVE VEGETATION Within the wetland creation areas (test cooling canal berms and Scout Lagoon mangrove planting area) and following removal of the laydown area (D-west), re-vegetation will be necessary because of exotic removal and the anticipated scrape down of these areas. All re-vegetation shall consist of native plant species indicative of the natural plant communities of that location to ensure continuity of indigenous plant associations. Re-vegetation may he achieved through the use of nursery stock plant materials or on-site transplants using the impact area as a donor site. If transplants are used, adequate water for temporary irrigation must he in place prior to transplant operation commencement unless irrigation is to be accomplished manually. Irrigation shall continue until transplants are established in new locations.

Plant species may he selected from Tables 1, 2 and 3. Scout Lagoon seagrass species may he selected from Table 3.

Prohibited exotic plant species, as defined in Table 4, and designated by the 2004 list of Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council shall he removed or eradicated from the Preserve Areas and the Project Area concurrent with permitted vegetation removal and site development.

Periodic follow-up removal/eradication will be required as specified in the maintenance section.

Table 1 - Potential Species for Re-vegetation Common Name Botanical Name Test Cooling Canal Ribs Green Buttonwood Conocarpus erecta Leather fern Acrostichum danaeifolium Pond apple Annona glabra White Mangrove Laguncularia racemosa Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera Canna Canna spp.

Spike rush Eleocharis spp.

Dahoon Holly /lex cassine Muhly grass Muhlenbergia capillaries Water lily Nymphaea spp.

Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea Pickerel weed Pontedeira cordata Beakrush Rhynchospora spp.

Duck potato Sagittaria lancifolia Cordgrass Spartina bakeri Chainfern Woodwardia spp.

Table 2 - Potential Species for Re-vegetation Common Name Botanical Name Area D west (temporary laydown)

Red mangrove Rhizophora mangle Salt grass Distich/is spicata Table 3 - Potential Species for Re-vegetation Common Name Botanical Name Scout Lagoon (not including upland plantings)

Widgeon-grass Ruppia maritime Shoal-grass Halodule wrightii Spike rush Eleocharis spp.

Red Mangrove Rhizophora mangle White Mangrove Laguncularia racemosa Green Buttonwood Conocarpus erecta Cordgrass Spartina patens Table 4 - Prohibited and Invasive Non-Native Plant Species Common Name Botanical Name Earleaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis Woman's tongue Albizia lebbeck Shoebutton ardisia Ardisia solanaceae Bishop-wood Bischofia javanica Australian pine Casuarina spp.

Leather leaf Colubrina asiatica Carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides Air potato Dioscorea bulbifera Lofty fig Ficus altissima Banyan Ficus bengalensis Mahoe Hibiscus tiliaceus Jasmine Jasminum dichotomum Small-leaved climbing fern Lygodium microphyllum Melaleuca, punk tree or paper tree Melaleuca quinquenervia Cat's claw Mimosa pigra Kudzu Pueraria montana (P. Lobata)

Downy rose myrtle Rhodomyrtus tomentosus Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum Schefflera Scheff/era actinophylla (Brassaia actinophyl/a)

Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius Java plum Syzygium cumini Cork tree Thespesia populnea MONITORING PROGRAM Field sampling (monitoring) is an integral part of this mitigation plan and will he used to evaluate and demonstrate mitigation success. The Turkey Point Expansion Project Mitigation Preserve Areas will he monitored to ensure the integrity and stability of the existing and restored native communities. All monitoring activities shall he conducted in accordance with requirements of the ACOE, and FDEP and the program shall utilize the following methodology for collection of data.

• A transect shall be established through the mitigation areas to cross the full range of existing water depths, vegetative interfaces, topographic gradients, and other environmental variants. To monitor vegetative re-e:olonization, stations shall he established at reasonable intervals and as necessary, at the interface of vegetative communities within the areas of proposed planting. Each station size shall be established and appropriately marked for future reference. These stations shall remain consistent over the monitoring period.

• During each monitoring session, information shall be collected concerning species composition, percent coverage, and relative health of vegetation. Data sheets shall be developed to record data collected during each monitoring session.

The following vegetation strata shall be monitored at each station:

Canopy Species Shrub Layer Ground Layer Photographic Documentation Fixed points shall be established that will provide a consistent location for repetition of photographs that record conditions and changes within the Preserve Areas.

Hydrology Monitoring Water levels shall be recorded during monitoring survey session and reported on an annual basis.

Seagrass monitoring will be conducted as described below. Plant communities will be sampled for either: 1) species composition and relative abundance of each species in the entire system, or 2) biomass and relative importance of each species to the system. Both are measures of the structure of the community or ecosystem.

Seagrass monitoring within Area C-west shall be accomplished by similar methods as described below with emphasis placed upon non-intrusive methods of quantification.

Photography shall play an integral part of the verification process. The soft marine sediments require monitoring to be performed with timely caution.

The Braun-Blanquet method will be employed to evaluate a specific area (called a "plot" or "quadrat"), identifying all species represented in that area, then assigning each a code based on its contribution to the total area. An example of Braun-Blanquet codes is:

0: Species not present (Absent) 0.1: Solitary individual ramet, less than 5% cover 0.5: Few individual ramets, less than 5% cover 1: Species <5% of total 2: Species=5-10% of total 3: Species=l0-25% of total 4: Species=25-50% of total 5: Species=50-90% of total 6: Species>90% of total A second way to sample plant species composition involves identifying a plot or quadrat, as with Braun-Blanquet, but then counting the total number of individuals of each species within that area.

We will measure both species composition and biomass using the following sampling techniques:

I. Plot sampling, or quadrat sampling, to intensively study a small portion of the system in question in order to obtain a representative sample. Most often plot samples are replicated a number of times, in a random or haphazard way, to ensure that the data represent an unbiased picture of the system.

2. Point-quarter sampling expands on plot sampling in an attempt to reduce the amount of intensive labor involved in plot sampling. Rather than quantify the exact make-up of a specific plot, a random number of individuals are selected to provide the unbiased picture of the system.

Replicate samples using this method should also be taken to ensure statistical validity.

3. Transect sampling may be thought of as a long, narrow plot sample.

Measurements are taken for all individuals who fall along the transect line.

A combination of these sampling methods will be employed to meet the objective of identifying and monitoring important environmental factors (i.e., pH, conductivity, turbidity, salinity, conductivity and water depth) that may control plant species composition and biomass patterns in Scout Lagoon.

MAINTENANCE A quarterly maintenance program shall be implemented in the Preserve Areas to control invasive prohibited exotic plant species (Table 4) and maintain upland preserves as a functioning habitat for a period of at least two years. Maintenance activities will be pursued on a semi-annual basis for an additional three years. Following the five-year maintenance and monitoring period, FPL shall implement a long-term maintenance program as part of normal site maintenance operations. At a minimum, annual maintenance activities will be pursued.

Maintenance programs shall be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner by hand or chemically. During these routine maintenance inspections, trees and shrubs may be maintained by pruning, as required for healthy growth. Work efforts shall control and eradicate regrowth or seed germination of exotic and invasive species. Maintenance activities shall aim to achieve <I % cover of exotic and invasive species and shall not exceed 5% cover between maintenance events. Coverage of nuisance species shall not exceed I 0% between maintenance events. Chemicals used must be EPA registered products approved for use in the State of Florida that have been shown to present a wide margin of safety for fish, waterfowl and human life. Trash and debris shall be removed during each maintenance event.

REPORTING Baseline Reports A Baseline Report will be produced for the Scout Lagoon and Seagrass Restoration Project. A separate Baseline Report will be produced for vegetation and hydrologic improvements, except those to be completed after construction of power plant. A third Baseline Report will be produced for those areas to be restored after completion of power plant construction. Each report shall be submitted within 30 days of completion of the various mitigation activities. The reports shall include details on the progress of the improvements, a list of species planted, the number of individuals planted, and the date of the plantings. The report shall contain photographs, taken from referenced locations, to represent the entire mitigation site. Additionally, a drawing shall he included to show the location and direction of the camera.

Quarterly and Semi-Annual Reports Monitoring/progress reports shall be submitted quarterly approximately 90 days after the baseline reports are submitted. The quarterly reports shall include a brief description of the work completed since the previous report and work anticipated for the next period. Observations shall be noted from sampling locations and shall include an approximate number of plants surviving from the initial planting, additional seedlings planted, and explanations if survivorship trends. The reports shall include photographs from the locations referenced in the baseline reports.

These reports will describe any changes in vegetation species composition or dominance, survival of planted species, wildlife utilization, or other relevant conditions observed. Quarterly reports shall be produced during years one and two after initial plantings. Semi-annual reports shall be produced during years 3, 4, and 5. The content of semi-annual reports will be the same as quarterly reports.

Reports shall he submitted within 30 days after the monitoring event.

Annual Success Monitoring and Progress Reports Annual Success Monitoring and Progress Reports shall be submitted each year for 5 years after the baseline reports are submitted, unless the mitigation project is deemed successful by the ACOE and FDEP prior to year 5 (but not sooner than year 2). Annual reports shall contain an update of the features included in the Baseline Reports. The annual report shall serve as the quarterly and/or semi-annual report during the relevant period.

APPENDIX F FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COMMITMENT LETTER TO ACOE

FPL Group, Inc., 700 Unive.rse Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Mr. Kenneth Huntington, Project Manager December 15, 2004 US Army Corps of Engineers Palm Beach Regulatory Office 4400 PGA Blvd., Suite 500 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Re: Turkey Point Expansion Project Mitigation Plan

Dear Mr. Huntington:

Florida Power & Light Company {FPL) is pursuing the permitting and licensing of a natural gas, combined cycle power plant at the Turkey Point site. A comprehensive Mitigation Plan has been developed to address unavoidable wetland impacts associated with the Project. As part of the Mitigation Plan, under review by the Army Corps of Engineers {ACOE), the ACOE has requested that FPL provide financial assurance that the mitigation and associated monitoring and maintenance will be performed as specified in the plan.

FPL is a public utility regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). As such, the FPSC reviewed and approved the need for this Project, including the Mitigation Plan costs, and recovery of the associated costs from FPL's customers. This approval is documented in the Need Determination issued by the FPSC on June 18, 2004 (see Attachment 1). The need order recognizes the public necessity of providing reliable electric generation to the customers of South Florida and the specific need to reduce the generation/load imbalance that exists in the system. This Project will meet that need.

FPL Group is an "A" rated, public company as designated by Standard and Poor's, with a strong financial position and a significant standing in the business and environmental coinmunity. FPL maintains a comprehensive property and liability insurance program including excess Workers Compensation, auto, general liability, and professional liability with substantial self-insured retention. Additionally, FPL is a qualified self-insurer in Florida for Worker's Compensation.

For your reference, we are attaching a copy of our (1) the latest 10-K report for FPL; (2) FPL's annual reports for the last three years; (3) the latest debt ratings from the three major ratings agencies; and (4) documents related to FPL's recognized standing as an environmental steward in Florida, all of which demonstrate the financial strength and environmental leadership of FPL and its ability to assume the financial responsibility for the referenced mitigation plan including land transfer, Everglades Mitigation Bank mitigation credit purchases and the installation of the on-site aspects of the plan. The Mitigation Plan requirements are legal obligations as well as financial obligations under both the federal 404 permit and state site certification under the Florida Power Plant Siting Act. FPL is committed to fulfill those obligations.

FPL agrees to be responsible for the implementation of the Mitigation Plan and any risk of loss, or damages associated with that plan. We request that the ACOE accept this commitment letter and attached documentation as evidence ofFPL's assurance that it will meet the legal and financial obligations associated with the Turkey Point Expansion Project Mitigation Plan.

!fZJ~

Paul I. Cutler

£1~ ~':.)('V.Vf.4~ - . . . .

Barbara P. Linkiewicz Treasurer Environmental Licensing Manager

Florida Power & Light Credit Ratings Moody's S&P Fitch Corporate Credit Rating A1 A/A-1 N/A First Mortgage Bonds Aa3 A AA-Pollution control, solid waste disposal and industrial development revenue bonds Aa3NMIG-1 A/A-1 A+

Commercial paper P-1 A-1 F1

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Petition to determine need for. Turkey DOCK.ET NO. 040206~EI Point Unit 5 electrical power plant, by Florida ORDER NO. PSC-04~609-FOF-EI Power & Li t Com an . ~SUED: June 18, 2004 The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:

BRAULIO L. BAEZ, Chairman J. TERRY DEASON LILA A. JABER RUDOLPH "RUDY" BRADLEY CHARLES M. DAVIDSON APPEARANCES:

CHARLES A. GUYTON, ESQUIRE, Steel, Hector & Davis I.LP, Suite 601, 215 S.

Monroe St, Tallahassee, Florida 32301; R WADE LITCHFIEID, ESQU1RE, and NATALIE F.

SMITH, ESQUJRB, 700 Universe Boulevard. Juno Beac~ Florida 33408-0420; SUSAN F.

CLARK, ESQUIRE, Radey Thomas Yon & Clarlc, P.A., 313 North MonrQe Street, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32301; and KENNETH HOFFMAN, ESQUIRE, Rutledge Law Firm, P. 0.

Box 551, Tallahassee, Florida 32302, appearing on behalf of Florida Power & Light Company.

STEPHEN C. BURGESS, DEPUTY PUBLIC COUNSEL, Office of Public Counsel, c/o The Florida Legislature, 111 W. Madison Street, Room 812, TatJabassee, Florida 32399-1400, appearing on behalf of the Citizens of the State of Florida.

JENNIFER BRUBAKER, ESQUIRE, Florida Public Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, TalJabassee, Florida 32399~50, appearing on behalf of the Florida Public Service Commission.

ORDER GRANTING DETERMINATION OF NEED BY TIIE'COMMISSION:

Pursuant to Section 403.519, Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-22.081, Florida Administrative Code, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) filed a petition on March 8, 2004, for determination of need for a proposed electrical power plant located in Dade County. In support of its petition, FPL submitted a detailed Need Study and appendices that develop more fully the information required by Rule 25-22.081, Florida Administrative Code. Based on a detailed reliability assessment discussed in the Need Study, FPL projects that it will need 1,066

ORDER NO. PSC-04-0609-FOF-EI DOCKET NO. 040206-El PAGE2 megawatts (MW) of additional capacity to meet the needs of its customers and provide adequate reserve margins in 2007.

Consistent with the requirements in Rule 25-22.082, Florida Administrative Code, FPL developed a request for proposals (RFP), which was issued on August 25, 2003. FPL notified potential participants that it would evaluate the RFP proposals against or potentially in conjunction with a self-build option located at FPL' s existing Turkey Point site in Dade County, Florida. On October 24, 2003, FPL received five capacity proposals from four entities offering resource options that differed in size, type, and economic terms. Although some proposals did not satisfy the RFP's minimum ffllUirements, FPL evaluated all proposals received. Where proposals did not meet the minirn11DJ. requirements, FPL provided notice of the nature and extent of the non-compliance and provided an opportunity for the respondents to make changes to bring the proposals into compliance. Final analysis of the proposals demonstrated that FPL's self-build option, Turkey Point Unit 5, offered the lowest generation and transmission cost of all alternatives.

Turkey Point Unit 5 is estimated to produce a summer net capacity of approximately 1,144 MW, and an approximate winteprating of 1,181 MW. The proposed plant is to be located adjacent to FPL's existing Turkey Point complex, approximately 8 miles east of Florida City and 4.5 miles east of the eastern boundary of the city of Homest~ in Dade County, Florida. The proposed unit consists of a new natural gas fired, four-on-one combined cycle facility, designed to utilize four combustion turbines, four heat recovery steam generatom, and one steam turbine generator, and other related facilities. The proposed plant is estimated to commence commercial operation by June 2007.

In accordance with Section 403.519, Florida Statutes, this docket was established to determine whether the proposed Turkey Point Unit 5 meets the need for electric system reliability and integrity, the need for adequate elec1ricity at a reasonable cost, whether the proposed plant is the most cost-effective alternative available, whether there are any conservation measures that can mitigate the proposed power plant, and any other matteIS within the Commission's jurisdiction that it deems relevant. By Ord.et No. PSC-04-0325-PCO-El, issued March 30, 2004, a procedural schedule was established for this docket and a hearing was set for June 2, 2004. By Order No. PSC-04-0432-PCO-El, issued April 28, 2004, Calpine Energy Services, L.P. (Calpine) was granted intervention in this proceeding. The intervention of the Office of Public Counsel (OPC) was acknowledged by Order No. PSC-04-0506-PCO-Et issued May 17, 2004. On May 21, 2004, Calpine filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal from this proceeding.

At the June 2, 2004, hearing, the parties presented a series of stipulations which serve to address each of the eight issues that had been identified for hearing. We have reviewed the stipulations proposed by the parties, and find that they are appropriate based on the record

ORDER NO. PSC-04-0609-FOF-EI DOCKET NO. 040206-El PAGE3 development of this docket, and that they provide a reasonable resolution of the outstanding issues regarding FPL's petition. We therefore al?prove the stipulations, as set forth below:

1. FPL has complied with all aspects of Rule 25-22.082, Florida Administrative Code, "Selection of Generating Capacity." Iri a September 2003 preliminary RFP objections proceeding initiated by PACE [Partnership for Affordable Competitive Energy], the Commission concluded that PACE's objections to FPL's RFP did not demonstrate that FPL's RFP violated the Bid Rule [Rule 25-22.083, Florida Administrative Code]. The uncontested evidence filed by FPL in this docket shows FPL complied with the Bid Rule.

2. There is a need for the proposed Turkey Point Unit 5, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity, as this criterion is used in Section 403.519, Florida Statutes~ Absent the timely addition of Turkey Point Unit 5, FPL's summer reserve margins will fall to 14.7 percent in the summer of 2007, well below the Commission-approved 20 percent reserve margin planning criterion. Further, the addition of Turkey Point Unit 5 will enhance FPL's operating flexibility and system reliability in Southeast Florida by reducing the growing imbalance between generation and load in this region.

3. There is a need for the proposed Turkey Point Unit 5, taking into account the need* for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost, as this criterion is used in Section 403.519, Florida Statutes. Turkey Point Unit 5 will be a highly efficient and reliable, state-of-the-art unit producing low-cost electricity for FPL's customers. It is the lowest cost option available to meet the 2007 needs of FPL's customers.

4. There are no additional conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to Florida Power & Light Company which might mitigate the need for the proposed Turkey Point Unit 5. In assessing its 2007 need, FPL assumed implementation of all reasonably achievable, cost--effective conservation and load management measures previously determined by the Commission to be available to FPL.

S. The proposed Turkey Point Unit 5 is the most cost--effective alternative available, as this criterion is used in Section 403.519, Florida Statutes. In evaluating its next planned generating unit, FPL quantified and evaluated each alternative's impact on FPL's system production costs and transmission-related costs. Ultimately, FPL selected the Turkey Point combined cycle option as the best, most cost--effective alternative and identified it as its next planned generating unit FPL also engaged in an extensive capacity solicitation process through its RFP in compliance with the Bid Rule. Proposals received in response to its RFP were used to

. develop candidate portfolios in configurations that satisfied the 2007 need. FPL's and. the independent evaluator's extensive economic evaluations of these proposals included

ORDER NO. PSC-04-0609-FOF-EI DOCKET NO. 040206-El PAGE4 quantifying and considering generation-related costs, transmission-related costs (including transmission interconnection and integration costs, energy and capacity losses and increased operational costs), as well-as the impact of each portfolio on FPL's capital structure minus mitigating factors offered by purchased power options. FPL calculated each option's transmission-related costs by calculating the revenue requirements associated with transmission interconnection and integration for each option as well as each option's impact on FPL's transmission losses and costs of operating less efficient

• gas turbines in Southeast Florida.

The impact of purchased power portfolios on FPL's capital structure was recognimd by an equity adjustment according to the methodology contained in the RFP. Because rating agencies treat a portion of a purchasing utility's firm capacity payment as an off-balance sheet obligation, the equity adjustment represents a real cost associated with purchasing power that must be recognized in assessing purchased power options. Purchased power options provide some mitigation, through completion and performance security, to potential costs the purchasing utility might otherwise incur through a self-build alternative. This mitigating value was estimated and factored into the evaluation. Toe value of the mitigation is applie;d in the equity adjustment calculation to offset the cost of portfolios containing purchasea. power options. Toe sum of each portfolio's generation costs, transmission costs, and cost impact on capital structure minus the mitigating factors represented the total system costs to FPL customers for the portfolio..

Final *cost comparisons from the RFP evaluation demonstrated that Turkey Point Unit 5 offered a $271 million (cumulative present value revenue requirements, CPVRR) advantage compared to the next most competitive proposal. An independent evaluation confirmed FPL's conclusions. Turkey Point Unit 5 is FPL's best, most cost-effective alternative for meeting the 2007 needs ofFPL's customers.

6. Based on the resolution of the foregoing issues, and as more fully developed in FPL's Need Study and direct testimony, the Commission should grant Florida Power & Light Company's petition to determine the need for the proposed Turkey Point Unit 5.

7. If an affirmative determination of need is granted, FPL should be required to annually report the budgeted and actual cost compared to the $580.3 million estimated total in-service cost of Turkey Point Unit 5. Although the Bid Rule does not require that a utility annually report budgeted and actual costs associated with a proposed power plant, FPL is amenable to providing such information on an annual basis. Some costs may be higher than estimated and other costs may be lower, but FPL agrees that providing this information on an annual basis will allow Commission Staff to monitor FPL's progress towards achieving its estimated total cost of $580.3 million. The categories to be reported are: Major Equipment/EPC, Permitting, Transmission Interconnection and Integration, FGf Infrastructure Upgrades, Operations and Start-Up, Project Management,

ORDER NO. PSC-04-0609-FOF-EI DOCKET NO. 040206-EI PAGES Owners Costs, and AFUDC. fu providing this information by category FPL wants to clarify that the capital cost used in the evaluation that resulted in selecting Turkey Point Unit 5 as the most cost-effective resource option to meet FPL's 2007 need is the total estimated cost of $580.3. million and that any underruns in one category will be used to off-set any overruns in another category. Per the Bid Rule, FPL would need to demonstrate that costs in addition to the $580.3 million were prudently incurred and due to extraordinary circumstances for such additional costs to be recoverable. It: on the other hand, the actual total cost is less than $580.3 million, customers will receive the benefit of such cost underruns.

8. Following the issuance of an affirmative determination of need for Turkey Point Unit 5, this docket shall be closed.

We note that our approval of these stipulations is based on the stipulated record in this case, and that our decision herein is not intended to bind future Commissions to follow any particular methodology in evaluating future need applications.

• Upon consideration of the evi~ence adduced at hearing and in light of the criteria set forth in Section 403.519, Florida Statutes, we grant the petition for a determination of need for Turkey Point Unit 5. This order constitutes our final agency action and report as required by Section 403.507(2)(a)2, Florida Statutes, and as provided for in Section 403.519, Florida Statutes.

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that the stipulations proposed at the June 2, 2004, hearing are approved as set forth in the body of this Order. It is further ORDERED that Florida Power & Light Company's petition to determine need for Turkey Point Unit 5 electrical power plant is hereby granted. It is further ORDERED that each of the findings made in the body of this Order is hereby approved in every respect It is further ORDERED that all outstanding issues in this docket have been addressed as final agency action. With the issuance of this Order, no further action by this Commission is necessary, and this docket shall therefore be closed.

ORDER NO. PSC-04-0609-FOF-EI DOCKET NO. 040206-EI PAGE6 By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 18th day of June, 2004.

BLANCA S. BAYO, Director Division of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services By: Isl Kay Flynn Kay Flynn, Chief Bureau of Records

-- This is a facsimile copy. Go to the Commission's Web site, ht1p:l/www.tloridapsc.com or' fax a request to 1-850413-7118, for a copy of the order with signature. .

(SEAL)

JSB NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR ruDICIAL REVIEW The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing or judicial review of Commission orders that is available under Sections 120.57 or 120.68, Florida Statutes, as well as the procedures and time limits that apply. This notice should not be construed to mean all requests for an administrative hearing or judicial review will be granted or result in the relief sought.

Any party adversely affected by the Commission's final action in this matter may request:

1) reconsideration of the decision by filing a motion for reconsideration with the Director, Division of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of this order in the form prescribed by Rule 25-22.060, Florida Administrative Code; or 2) judicial review by the Florida Supreme Court in the case of an electric, gas or telephone utility or the First District Court of Appeal in the case of a water and/or wastewater utility by filing a notice of appeal with the Director, Division of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services and filing a copy of the notice of appeal and the filing fee with the appropriate court. This filing must be completed within thirty (30) days after the issuance of this order, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The notice of appeal must be in the form specified in Rule 9.900(a),

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

.n..uvui. u~, vvu1pa.u.Y .l'i:l\;l::i rage 1 ot 1 In 2003, FPL won the Edison Award - the electric power industry's highest honor - for clean energy, environmental excellence, customer satisfaction and increasing shareholder value.

Platts, the energy information unit of McGraw-Hill honored FPL Group as "Renewable Co. of the Year" in 2003.

In 2002, FPL Group won an award from The Council for Sustainable Florida for its sea turtle programs at the St Lucie nuclear plant.

FPL has been named no.* 1 among leading electric utilities for environmental performance by lnnovest, an investment research firm, in its last three surveys of the industry.

FPL Group is a charter partner in the Environmental Protection Agency's voluntary Climate Leaders program aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The program will begin by inventorying six greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuel-burning facilities and other greenhouse gas contributors. Over the past decade, we voluntarily have made significant reductions in plant emissions, and today we're among the lowest emitters of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide in the industry. Partnering with the EPA in Climate Leaders is an important next step for FPL Group to take along our journey to assess and reduce emissions at our power plants in Florida and throughout the country.

In 2001, the Fort Myers and Sanford repowering projects were honored for innovative energy management with an environmental award from the Florida Ocean Alliance, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing the state's coastal and ocean resources. The repowering projects were recognized for significant reductions in air emissions and barge traffic as well as for the wise use of existing land.

Earned the 2001 Waste Reduction and Pollution Prevention Award from the Florida Sunshine Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) for efforts to conserve resources and protect the environment.

1st electric utility to win William M. Benkert Award, U.S. Coast Guard's highest honor for excellence in marine environmental protection (1998),

Florida Department of Environmental Protection named FPL a Partner for Ecosystem Protection, in recognition of the company's emission-reducing "repowering" projects at Fort Myers and Sanford.

FPL's emissions rate of greenhouse gases is among the lowest in the country. Following the repowering of Ft Myers and Sanford plants with more efficient natural gas fired units, FPL's CO2 emissions rate will meet the reduction proposal called for by the Kyoto Protocol.

In the past two decades, FPL's Demand-Side Management Program has avoided the environmental impacts of building 3000 MWs of generation.

FPL received EEi's top award for outstanding achievements in land management and environmental stewardship activities in 2001 for its wetlands mitigation bank and crocodile protection and research program at Turkey Point.

FPL's overall emissions are among lowest in the country, based on the amount of electricity it produces.

More than 50% of FPL's generation - and 80% of FPL Energy's - is from clean sources.

FPL's award-winning efforts for the past 25 years have enabled a large number of endangered and threatened species to thrive in their natural habitat.

FPL donated 18-acre Manatee Island to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2001 http://infpVglobaVaboutus/Infosources5401.shtml 12/14/2004

l=l=IL CiRCIUP Our Environment @ www.FPL.com Overview Numerous national and state awards have been presented to FPL in recognition of its sustained emphasis on upgrading its environmental record.

More information on FPL's commitment and actions to preserve, protect and enhance our environment is available by clicking on "Our Environment" at our Web site: www.FPL.com.

Our Among the cleanest and most efficient utilities in the world, FPL strives for Commitment to continuous improvement. In Building a Sustainable Future, we explain our the vision as we're Environment

• your neighbors

• talcing care of business

• enhancing our commitment and

• building better communities through stronger relationships.

Recycling FPL's Central Reclamation and Salvage Department is committed to cost Spotlight effectively recover and market surplus assets, maximizing value while protecting the environment.

Power Plant We at FPL want to be the first and best source of information about our Operations and power plant operations, including our environmental performance. In doing Toxic Release that, we want to share information on how the FPL system works and what Inventory FPL is doing to provide electricity that is clean, safe, reliable and affordable.

Barley Barber The Barley Barber Swamp is a 400-acre freshwater cypress swamp preserved Swamp by FPL in western Marti~ County. FPL took great care in making it accessible through a boardwalk.

Endangered One of the pillars of FPL's environmental efforts is its programs to protect Species endangered species. At several power plant sites, FPL maintains active programs for protecting endangered or threatened species, such as

• American crocodiles and alligators

• Florida manatees

• southern bald eagles

• wood storks

• sea turtles and

• Florida panthers.

Common In Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the State of Florida spent $90,836,680 on exotic Exotic and plant and animal and insect control. Approximately 1.7 million acres of Invasive Florida's remaining natural areas have been invaded by exotic plant species Species Found that reduce biodiV-ersity and strain endangered species.

in Florida We list some of the exotic species that are affecting Florida's flora and fauna.

Environmental A list of Web resources on environmental Resources

• agencies

• organizations

• parks and

• education and wildlife resources.

Everglades FPL's Everglades Mitigation Bank is returning more than 13,000 acres of Mitigation wetlands to their natural, historical condition. As a result, FPL can offer Bank developers and private land owners mitigation credits in one of Florida's most environmentally important areas'.

Nuclear Power FPL's nuclear power plants provide a clean energy resource. Since nuclear Serves You power plants do not burn fuel, there are virtually no air emissions, such as greenhouse gases that may contribute to global warming.

AP

• April 17, 1998 .

Coast Guard issues environmental protection

' . awards WASHINGTON (AP) - Companies as well known as Princess Cruises and others like the CARCO Savannah Asphalt Refinery in Georgia received U.S. Coast Guard awards Friday for outstanding marine environmental protection programs.

Princess Cruises Inc., based In Los Angeles, received the 1997 William M. Benkert Award in the large vessel category for its nine-course environmental training program required of aH Cf'(rtN members. Also receiving an award in*that categc;,ry was Maritrans Inc. of Philadelphia, one of the largest independent petroleum transporters in the world.

The Coast Guard issued a Benkert award in the small-vessel category to American Electric Power of Lakin, W.Va., for its mandatory training program and creation of Its "Fast Response" video for internal and external training.

In the large facility category, Florida Power & Light Co. of Jll'lo Beach, Fla., was the award winner. It has made environmental awareness a top corporate priority. The small facility award went to CARCO, which has spent $8.5 miUton over the past three years for environmental upgrades.

• The awards are named after the late Rear Adm. William M.

Benkert, a Coast Guard officer who had a passion for marine environmental protection.

ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT D: CWRC HDD Contingency Plan (aka Frac-Out Monitoring &

Emergency Management Plan)

Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Conditions of Certification PA03-45

HDD Contingency Plan FPL Miami-Dade Clean Water Recovery Center Project 1 Introduction Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) in partnership with Miami-Dade County, is developing an advanced reclaimed water treatment facility called the FPL Miami-Dade Clean Water Recovery Center (CWRC). The CWRC will further treat up to 15 million gallons per day (MGD) of reclaimed water from Miami-Dade County South District Wastewater Treatment Plant for use in Turkey Point Clean Energy Center Unit 5s cooling towers. The project will consist of the CWRC, located at the Turkey Point Clean Energy Center, and an ~8-mile reclaimed waterline that will deliver the treated reclaimed water to the Turkey Point site. The proposed reclaimed waterline will cross Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project (C&SF Project) canals and/or levees via trenchless methods such as horizontal directional drills (HDDs). This HDD Contingency Plan identifies procedures that will be implemented in the event an HDD is deemed not viable at any of the proposed locations and provides procedures for monitoring and containing an inadvertent release of drilling fluids or muds.

2 Alternative Construction to HDD HDDs have been in use since the 1970s. The technology has become relatively common and is a proven installation method for the proposed reclaimed waterline associated with the CWRC Project.

Problems with HDDs are generally associated with subsurface conditions where, in some cases, non-uniformity may exist in the underlying formationsnotably those containing scattered rock, sands, or gravelor cavities where the drilling fluid pressures on the drill head cannot be maintained. In these cases, the pilot hole or reaming hole may become unstable or collapse, causing a sudden increase or loss in bore hole pressure and associated loss of drilling fluid returns during the drilling operation.

If, for any reason, it becomes necessary to suspend HDD operations and/or abandon a partially completed drill hole, the drill will be withdrawn, and the hole will be filled and plugged at the surface.

If it is determined necessary to abandon the original HDD location, the proposed alignment may be shifted and retried.

FPL may also adopt alternative construction methods to suit site-specific conditions including open-cut excavation, or conventional jack and bore. Such alternative methods would only be used after notifying applicable regulatory agencies and obtaining the necessary approvals as appropriate in accordance with the permit conditions. No alternative crossing methods will be implemented without proper agency notification and approval.

3 HDD Monitoring Procedures During the HDD process, there is a potential risk of an inadvertent release of drilling muds or fluids to the surface. Preventative measures to reduce and/or contain inadvertent releases within wetlands and waterbodies will be implemented. Preventative measures include the installation of silt fence around HDD entry and exit work, access to onsite deployable turbidity booms, and access to a wetland scientist will be within a two-hour drive to assess impacts and make recommendations to mitigate impacts.

The HDD supervisory personnel will be on site at all times during HDD activities to continuously monitor all operations during drilling activities for any anomalous conditions. Drilling parameters will be established to maximize circulation and minimize risk of inadvertent releases. Monitoring of HDD activities will be done in accordance with procedures to be provided by the Projects drilling 1

HDD Contingency Plan contractor. Personnel involved with the HDD process will be trained in the identification of inadvertent releases and the implementation of this contingency plan prior to commencing HDD activities. HDD monitoring and sampling procedures will include:

• Visual inspection along the drill path, including monitoring the wetlands and waterbodies for evidence of a release;

• Continuous monitoring of drilling mud consistency, drilling mud pressures, and return flows; and

• Periodic recording of drill status information regarding drill conditions, pressures, returns, and progress during the course of drilling activities.

Once the drilling activities are completed, the site will be inspected after equipment removal to identify any visual signs of release.

The drilling mud likely to be used for the Project would generally consist of fresh water, with a high yield bentonite added to achieve the necessary properties, such as viscosity. Bentonite is composed of clay minerals, and it is not considered a hazardous material by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Therefore, in the event of a release into a wetland or waterbody, there would be a temporary impact due to an increase in turbidity from the bentonite and the efforts to contain and clean up the released drilling mud.

4 Drilling Fluids Control and Containment 4.1 Storage of Fluids and Lubricants Storage of fluids and lubricants that could potentially harm the environment will be handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan will be developed and kept onsite during drilling operations.

4.2 Containment and Cleanup of Drilling Fluids HDD procedures demand that highly accurate monitoring and control systems be used to track the progress and exact location of the drilling head at all times. Drilling fluid is used during the advancement of the drill string to penetrate the formation, aid in stabilizing the bore hole, and maintain cutting suspension. The specific weight of the drilling fluid is adjusted throughout the procedure to ensure hydrological stability of the drill hole, while effectively transporting the cuttings to the return pit. Only experienced personnel trained in the HDD process will be assigned the task of conducting and monitoring HDD drilling operations. If a release of drilling fluid should occur in the Project area, the following measures will be implemented.

2

HDD Contingency Plan 4.2.1 Measures to Contain a Release of Drilling Fluid in a Wetland or Waterbody

• Install silt fence around HDD entry and exit work.

• Have deployable turbidity booms available onsite during waterbody crossings.

• Have access to a wetland scientist within a two-hour drive to assess impacts and make recommendations to mitigate impacts if they occur.

• A sample of the drilling slurry will be collected and held for future analysis in the event that an analysis is requested by regulatory agencies.

• If an inadvertent release of drilling fluid occurs within a wetland, waterbody or sensitive area, appropriate regulatory agencies will be contacted in accordance with applicable regulations and requirements. Drilling fluid pressure will be reduced and operations will be suspended to assess the extent of the release and to implement necessary corrective actions.

• Inspection will be initiated to determine the potential movement of released drilling mud within the wetland or waterbody.

• The Projects drilling contractor will determine and implement modifications to the drilling technique or composition of drilling fluid (e.g., thickening of mud by increasing bentonite content) as appropriate to minimize or prevent further releases of drilling mud.

• The release will be evaluated to determine if containment structures, such as sediment barriers or erosion controls, are warranted and can effectively contain the release. When making this determination, the potential that placement of containment structures will cause additional adverse environmental impacts will also be considered.

• If accessible, the Project contractor will clean up and remove all drilling fluid from the site and dispose of it in accordance with the applicable regulations.

• Upon completion of the drilling operations, applicable regulatory agencies will be consulted to determine any final cleanup requirements for the inadvertent release.

4.2.2 Measures to Contain a Release of Drilling Fluid on Land

• If a land release is detected, corrective action will be taken to contain and recover the release.

• If public health and safety are threatened by an inadvertent release, drilling operations will be shut down until the threat is effectively addressed or eliminated.

• The Projects drilling contractor will determine and implement modifications to the drilling technique or composition of drilling fluid (e.g., thickening of mud by increasing bentonite content) as appropriate to minimize or prevent further releases of drilling mud.

5 Notification Procedures Agency contact names and telephone numbers will be maintained by FPLs Construction Manager. If a release occurs, the Projects contractor will immediately notify FPLs Construction Manager. Notifications will include any affected agencies with jurisdiction over the Project. FPL will work with the appropriate jurisdictional agencies to develop suitable response and clean-up measures.

ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT A: EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY AGREEMENT Florida Department of Environmental Protection FPL Turkey Point Plant Conditions of Certification PA03-45

EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY AGREEMENT This Agreement, shall be effective as of July I, 1982, by and between the Parties hereto, to wit: the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "Department"), and Florida Power & Light Company (hereinafter "Company").

WIT NESSETH WHEREAS, the Department is an agency designated under Chapter 252, Florida Statutes, to protect the public health and safety in the State of Florida regarding matters relating to radioactive materials; and WHEREAS, the Company owns and operates the Turkey Point and St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plants (hereinafter "the Plants"); and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into an Agreement by which the Department, pursuant to applicable federal and state regulations, will maintain an adequate capability to respond to radiological emergencies at the Plants.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

1.0 DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT 1.1 The Department shall receive and record all reports of radiological emergencies at the Plants, as provided in the State of Florida Radiological Emergency Management Plan for Nuclear Power Plants (hereinafter referred to as "the Plan" and incorporated herein by reference); assess the impact or potential impact of such emergencies; and activate provisions of the Plan to assess levels of

radioactivity in off-site areas. Off-site areas are all areas other than owner-controlled areas as that term is defined in Company's Radiological Emergency Plans.

The Department will be guided but not bound by the criteria of 10 CFR 140.84 in establishing that there has been substantial discharge or dispersal of radioactive material to off-site areas or owner-controlled areas occupied by members of the general public.

1.2 The Department shall coordinate the provisions of the Plan as applicable to the required emergency response capability of the Department.

1.3 The Department shall coordinate action taken pursuant to the Plan with similar applicable plans of federal, state and local governmental agencies with jurisdiction.

1.4 The Department shall train Department personnel, and assist in training other state and local governmental personnel, in order to familiarize them with the health hazards and emergency operating procedures applicable to radiological emergencies and to assure an adequate emergency response capability on the part of the Department.

1.5 The Department shall assist state and local governmental agencies in planning for required protective actions.

1.6 The Department shall provide radiological laboratory capability, including mobile laboratory facilities, and field radiological instrumentation, equipment and supplies for use by the Department to ensure that measures outlined above are properly and effectively carried out.

I .7 In the event of an on-site radiological emergency, the Department shall aid and advise the Company in its efforts to contain the release of. radioactive materials.

Page 2 of 8

2.0 DUTIES OF THE COMPANY

2. 1 The Company shall pay the Department in accordance with Section 3.0 -

"Payment".

2.2 The Company shall comply with the insurance requirements of Section ti.O -

Insurance".

3.0 PAYMENT

3. 1 Company shall pay to Department actual costs incurred by Department's Office of Radiation Control in the implemenation of Florida Statutes Section 252.60 "Radiological Emergency Preparedness" on behalf of the Company.

3.2 The Department shall submit to the Company for its approval an annual budget for expenses to be incurred hereunder.

3.3 Payment by the Company shall be made in advance on a quarterly basis. The Department shall submit an invoice for such payments. Upon receipt of such invoice, the Company will review same for approval and use reasonable effort to make payment to the Department no later than thirty days from receipt of said invoice, provided such invoiced costs are within budget limits set forth herein.

Supporting documentation shall be made available to the Company upon request.

3.ti The Department shall provide to the Company a quarterly accounting of all costs incurred by the Department during the quarter immediately prior thereto.

Should the amount of such costs differ from the amount paid to the Department by the Company for such quarter, the difference in payment shall be added to or subtracted from Department's next invoice, as applicable.

3.5 The Company will allow flexibility. for the Department to increase the budget, without the necessity of approval by the Company, in an amount not to Page 3 of 8

exceed 5% of the Company's portion of total budget. In addition, the Department may transfer up to I 0% among expense categories without prior approval of the Company upon the condition that: (a) such transfers will only be authorized by the Department in the event of an unexpected need in a particular category; and (b) such transfers will be reported to the Company in the quarterly accounting provided for herein. Said transfers shall be made only to enhance the Department's capability to perform its obligations under this Agreement.

4.0 INSURANCE 1/.I For the purposes of this Section only, the terms below shall be defined as follows:

1/. I. I Act: Atomic Energy Act of 19 51/, as amended.

4.1.2 ANI/MAELU: American Nuclear Insurers/Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters.

4. 1.3 Government Indemnity: An indemnity agreement between the Company and the NRC entered into pursuant to Subsection I 70(c) of the Act.

4. 1.4 NML: Nuclear Mutual Limited

4. 1.5 NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

4. 1.6 Nuclear Damage: Any loss, damage, or loss of use, which in whole or in part is caused by, arises out of, results from, or is in any way related, directly or indirectly to the hazardous properties of source, special nuclear or byproduct material, as those materials are defined in the Act.

4.1.7 Nuclear Liability Protection System: Liability insurance from ANI/MAELU or other financial protection in such amount and such Page 4 of 8

form as shall meet the financial protection requirements of the NRC pursuant to Subsection l 70(b) of the Act.

4.1.8 Nuclear Energy Hazard: Shall be as defined in the ANI/MAELU insurance policies held by Company.

4.1.9 Nuclear Facility: Shall be as defined in the ANI/MAELU insurance policies held by Company.

4.1.10 Nuclear Plant Site: The description and location of property insured contained on the Declarations page of the NML policy held by Company.

4.2 Company shall, at its expense, maintain Nuclear Liability Protection and Government Indemnity to meet the requirements of Section 170 of the Act.

Department shall be included as an insured under the liability insurance. Company waives any right of recourse that it may have against Department on account of liability of Company to third parties caused by or arising out of the Nuclear Energy Hazard to the extent it is indemnified for such liability. This Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of the state's sovereign immunity or protection afforded to the state by Chapter 768, Florida Statutes.

In the event that the Act expires, is repealed, or the protection provided is reduced, Company shall, without cost to Department, procure on the date the protection is so effected, and maintain in effect during the period of time Company owns the Nuclear Facility, to the extent available on reasonable terms and consistent with then current customary U.S. electric utility industry practice, contractual indemnity, limitation of liability and/or liability insurance from a recognized market, or in lieu thereof, equivalent protection from alternate sources in order to minimize impairment of the protection afforded Department as set forth above.

4.3 Company shall maintain, at its expense, nuclear property damage insurance Page 5 of 8

covering property on the Nuclear Plant Site from NML or other acceptable markets.

Terms of coverage shall be at the discretion of Company. Company waives and will require its insurers to waive all rights of recovery against Department and its suppliers of every tier for Nuclear Damage to any property located at the Nuclear Plant Site to the extent Company is indemnified for such damage by its nuclear property damage insurers. To the extent that Company recovers damages from a third party for Nuclear Damage to any property located at the Nuclear Plant Site, Company shall indemnify Department and its suppliers against any liability for any damages which such third party recovers from Department or suppliers for such Nuclear Damage. This Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of the state's sovereign immunity or protection afforded to the state by Chapter 768, Florida Statutes.

5.0 MISCELLANEOUS 5.1 Nothing expressed or implied in this Agreement shall relieve the Company of its legal responsibilities under the laws of Florida or from compliance with any Jaw, regulation or requirement of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over the licensing or operation of the Plants.

5.2 The Company and the Department shall use their best efforts to implement provisions of the Company's Radiological Emergency Plans and the Plan in a coordinated manner.

5.3 The Parties shall notify each other, as provided in this Agreement, of any and all changes made in their respective plans.

5.1/ This Agreement shall not serve to limit any action of the Department or Page 6 of 8

other State agencies under the laws of Florida to protect the public health and safety not specifically prohibited by law.

5.5 All notices pertaining to or affecting the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered either in person or by registered or certified mail to the Parties at the following addresses:

The Department Mailed or Delivered: Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Assistant Secretary for Operations 1317 Winewood Blvd.

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Company Mailed: Florida Power & Light Company Vice President Nuclear Energy P. 0. Box 529 I 00 Miami, Florida 33152 Delivered: Florida Power & Light Company Vice President Nuclear Energy 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33174 Either Party may, at any time, by written notice to the other Party, designate different or additional persons or different addresses for the giving of notices hereunder.

5.6 This Agreement is intended as the exclusive statement of the agreement between the Parties. Paro! or extrinsic evidence shall not be used to vary or contradict the express terms of this Agreement, and recourse shall not be had to alleged prior dealings, usage of trade, course of dealing, or course of performance to explain or supplement the express terms of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be amended or modified, and no waiver of any provision hereof shall be effective unless set forth in a written instrument authorized and executed by duly designated and authorized officers of the Parties with the same formality as this Agreement.

Page 7 of 8

5.7 In the event of a default in any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, within ten days after receipt of written notice of the existence and nature of the default, the defaulting Party shall take all steps necessary to cure such default as promptly and completely as possible.

5.8 The effective date of this Agreement is July I, 1982. The term of this Agreement shall be fifty years from the effective date hereof, or until decommissioning of the Plants is completed, whichever is later; provided, however, that either Party may cancel this Agreement at any time, with reasonable cause, upon ninety days prior written notice to the other Party. "Reasonable cause" shall include, but not be limited to, substantial amendment to Chapter 252 of the Florida Statutes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed.

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES TITLE: Vice President, Nuclear Energy TITLE: Assistant Secretary for Operations Page 8 of 8

'r STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF Bob Graham, Governor Health & Rehabilitative Services 1317 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 April 18, 1983 Mr. Jay J, Maisler Florida Power & Light Company Post Office Box 529100 Miami, Florida 33152

Dear Mr. Maisler:

Enclosed is the original fully executed copy of the Emergency Response Capability Agreement between the State of Florida, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services and Florida Power

& Light Company.

A proposed budget of our funding requirements for Fiscal Year 1983-84 has been finalized and is presently in review by the Department. We anticipate that it will be returned to us in the near future, at which time we will send to FPL for review and approval.

We are pleased to have finalized the Agreement under which our emergency response plans and preparedness will operate.

Sincerely, e h.D.

Dire or, fice of Radia ion Control Enclosure Copy to Wallace B. Johnson, HRS